What Tony Kushner has to say about the election- Page 2

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 10/21/04 at 12:12pm

I don't think he's still an addict, just a zealot and a puppet and perhaps partially retarded. Loved the Kushner article, BTW.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/21/04 at 1:43pm

And by your logic, goth, heterosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry for their drug use.

[Plum]

Posted: 10/21/04 at 4:25pm

I'm begging all rational Republicans to look hard not at what Bush says, but at what he's accomplished. He is flushing this country down the toilet, and he appeals to everything that's weak and wrong in human nature to stay in power. This man isn't just a benevolently bumbling President; he's malicious and destructive and deceptive and self-righteous through it all.

Not that, you know, this administration makes me want to tear my hair out or anything.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 10/21/04 at 4:57pm

"I'm begging all rational Republicans to look hard not at what Bush says, but at what he's accomplished."

You mean like freeing Iraq from a cruel dictator? Allowing Iraqi women, who were being raped for sport, the chance to have more control over their circumstances? Allowing an entire nation to have a voice in their government? I should judge Bush by those accomplishments?

[Plum]

Posted: 10/21/04 at 5:05pm

Oh, and Iraq is so much more free and lawful now under martial law.

I'm the last person who'll defend Sadaam Hussein. He's the reason I learned how to put on a gas mask when I was in kindergarten. But looking from the U.S. perspective- why did we do this? What was the instigation? There are countries that are just as bad or worse than Iraq when it comes to systematically oppressing their citizens. Why don't we invade all those countries, too?

Because not only is it paternalistic, it's also extremely expensive, in terms of people and money. We were already in the middle of a war- a very important war- in Afghanistan. That country has been practically forgotten now, but not because it's under perfect happy democratic control. No, instead it's been forgotten because Bush decided to stick his stupid head in where it really didn't need to go.

Once again I ask, why Iraq? Why not North Korea? Why not any number of countries in Africa, South or Central America, or Southeast Asia? Is it the fact that his dad, in some people's opinion, didn't finish the job? Is it because Iraq has oil? WHY?

Why are over 1,000 Americans dead? Why are we stuck in a reconstruction that's getting harder than easier with every passing day? I'm not an isolationist. But I believe in knowing when you need to start a war and when you need to use other methods. Not to mention when you just need to put up and shut up. Bush has abandoned worthy efforts like bringing peace to Israel and the future Palestinian state. He's done the Afghanistan war in a half-assed way. And he only put his full effort and attention (inept as it is) into the least necessary effort- this idiot Iraqi war.

Explain this to me. Please.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/21/04 at 5:12pm

Gotham, please answer these questions.

Hell, just HEAR these questions.

And why that nation when there are so many who are as bad or worse? How do we choose which evildoers to topple? Why didn't we go after Osdama and Al-Qaeda, who killed so many of our citizens? Why did we go after Iraq and not North Korea or Iran?

Finally, why do we allow the Saudis to continue, when they preach hatred of everything we stand for?

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 10/21/04 at 5:15pm

plum, here's my answer to that question from many moons ago and reading over it, it's not changed a bit...

https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.cfm?page=4&thread=89444&startthread=89517&boardname=off

[Plum]

Posted: 10/21/04 at 5:15pm

Saudi Arabia: home of Wahhabism (sp?) and most of the 9/11 terrorists.

But to be honest, I don't know if attacking that country is the best idea. It's just that if we're looking at evil nations, Iraq isn't at the top of the list. Despite Saddam's evilicious mustache.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 10/21/04 at 5:26pm

saudi arabia: home of wahhabism (sp?) and most of the 9/11 terrorists.

i think you spelled it right, but it's also home to mecca and medina. y'want worldwide global catastrophic conflict with muslims on one side and the rest of the world on the other and the chinese sitting and giggling while the rest of the world blows each other up? invade the seat of islam. it's not a possibility, which is probably why you qualify that remark.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/21/04 at 5:31pm

Invading Iraq under Papa's way of thinking was possibly valid.

But Dubya's father and mother other brilliant American military minds had already determined that invading Iraq would never, EVER be successful.

Invading Iraq with no feasible plan of how to proceed after invasion and regime-toppling--that ought to be an impeachable offense.

That is why George Bush MUST be defeated.

[Plum]

Posted: 10/21/04 at 5:32pm

Invading ain't the same thing as withdrawing support from the regime. *shrug* But I'm guessing that if the royal family got removed, they'd be replaced by something worse. That seems to be the general trend. Hence my "leave it alone- most of the time" theory of diplomacy.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 10/21/04 at 5:35pm

ah, plum i would never have figured you for the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" school.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 10/21/04 at 5:37pm

papa - as much as I came to understand the perspective you brought to the Iraq issue, what I haven't understood is this: If that really was their point, then the focus of the plan would have been on what to do after Sadaam was removed, and what has become glaringly obvious is that that was/is not the case. Basically, every day that has gone by has reduced the validity of the 'seed of democracy' rationalization.

[Plum]

Posted: 10/21/04 at 5:38pm

Papa, I read your post in the other thread. Quickly. So if I'm misunderstanding you, feel free to yell at me.

I disagree. You know what was (is) a great chance to instill a democratic and Arab regime in the Middle East? Palestine. Oh yeah, folks. Hey, did you know that lots of Palestinians are secularists or Christians? They're becoming more and more radicalized with every day they have to deal with arseholes like the current Israeli PM, though.

So what does Bush do with this diplomatic problem? No, what does he do with this opportunity, that would get him the Nobel Peace Prize 20 times over if he succeeded at all? He ignores it and lets Ariel Sharon wreak havok. And to me, after the Clinton years (I adore that man for how much he tried), that feels like a betrayal.

Papa, you're right- the big war here is the ideological one. And that's reason number 658 you should be against Bush. Who exactly is he swaying here? Everyone hates the smirking jerk. Except maybe Poland. Bush's arrogant cowboy attitude and his complete aversion to anything resembling true multilateralism could spell the end of us and our ideology if it's allowed to continue.

And I'm in the "if you know from experience that the 'cure' is worse than the 'disease,' don't play doctor" school. Updated On: 10/21/04 at 05:38 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/21/04 at 5:39pm

Well, looks like our regime change in Iraq is going to lead to a civil war that will lead to an Iraqi fundamentalist regime that makes the ayatollahs in Iran look like a buncha Unitarians. Thanks, George.

Updated On: 10/21/04 at 05:39 PM

[robbiej]

Posted: 10/21/04 at 5:39pm

The thing that I find most disturbing is the fact that the actions Bush I and the UN took (and are continuing to do) actually worked.

So...no we are left with an 'ends justify the means' situation. The American public was at the very least, misled (if not downright lied to) and now over 1000 American servicement and over God knows how many thousand Iraqis (over 20K at this point?) are dead.

Will a democratic Iraq spark change in the Middle East? Perhaps. But will we ever get to the point where Iraq will be a true democracy?

God knows.

[Plum]

Posted: 10/21/04 at 5:43pm

Don't forget the contractors, journalists, and humanitarian workers. Or as Bush would say, perfectly acceptable collateral damage. Updated On: 10/21/04 at 05:43 PM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 10/21/04 at 5:51pm

well, i can say with categoric certainty that i've never passed up an opportunity to play doctor.

as far as the rest, palestine had the best deal they could have ever hoped for peace and their own state and they spit in barak and clinton's faces. now they are gonna have to wait for yassir to kick the bucket to achieve anything. let's see how they do with gaza if arik can ever manage to pull out.

as far as the smirking jerk, i'll take a leader who is not afraid to be hated over one who has a pathological need to be liked anyday.

robbie, that's still less iraqis than died under "curious" circumstances in a normal year under saddam.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 10/21/04 at 5:57pm

Why didn't Papa Bush finish in Iraq?

How come Clinton didn't finish it in the eight years he was in office? The first attack on the World Trade Center happened on Clinton's watch. Had he done something then, we might not have had to go through 9/11. But I guess he couldn't quit "I didn't inhale"ing or pull up his pants fast enough to get the job done.

[Plum]

Posted: 10/21/04 at 6:03pm

Bull**** and more bull****, Goth. Read Against All Enemies. Clinton made plenty of efforts against terrorists. And Papa Bush didn't finish in Iraq because he knew a basic rule of power- remove the Leviathan, and you get chaos. Hooray for Hobbes in reverse. And maybe he didn't feel like undergoing an impossible nation-building project.

Nation-building in the Bush Jr. mold has never worked before. I don't see why it should start working now. I'm going to do more research before I speak extensively on this topic, but remember this- the U.S. let Japan's imperial system stay after WWII to help make the transition to democracy easier. They turned the existing power structure to better ends. If President Bush was suddenly in office then, he would have stuck the emperor in jail and failed utterly.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/21/04 at 6:04pm

If only goth had half of papa's eloquence and wit--I might actually take anything he said seriously.

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 10/21/04 at 6:09pm

Goth - 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq.

And invading Iraq had nothing to do with getting rid of a dictator and freeing the Iraqi people. The reason was probably oil or to finish what papa bush started, we'll probably never know.

[Plum]

Posted: 10/21/04 at 6:11pm

To be completely fair, I think some people in the Bush inner circle are true believers in the crackpot theory that Saddam is the big mastermind behind al-Quaeda and attacks like the first World Trade Center bombing.

Except we don't normally give crackpots the controls of international policy, do we?