377 - The-Whys-Of-Disappointment

As far as I can see, the re-election of Bush is a bad thing, both for America and the World. Note this is heavily biased by my views =P

Iraq

Prior to the invasion of Iraq there may have been terrorists in Iraq. Now there most certainly are: they are killing Iraqis nearly every day. There have been far more Iraqi civilians killed in the invasion of Iraq than people killed by terrorists in the USA that wouldn’t be dead if we hadn’t invaded Iraq. Never mind that many have been killed by the terrorists now in Iraq, they would still be alive if we hadn’t invaded their country.

In addition to this, there have been no WMDs found in Iraq; making the case presented in support of going to war a falsehood, especially now the intelligence presented at the time has been shown to be dubious. More importantly, it has been found that many high-ranking defense officials tried to tell people it was dubious and were ignored in the scramble to present the case for war.

The other reason put forward for the invasion of Iraq was that of regime change. This, in my opinion, is utterly invalid; absolutely not a reason for invading a country. It was said that Saddam was a corrupt, evil dictator. Which, there is no doubt, he was. This does not, however, give cause to invade a county. Many countries around the world have corrupt, evil dictators and we’re not invading them: invading a sovereign country that has done you no harm is wrong, both morally and, quite likely, legally.

Thinking of the War on Terror, attacking a Muslim country is also fairly unlikely cause Muslims who were thinking of joining up with some terrorist network or other to just go back home. It’s like going and stamping on a wasps nest just because a wasp stung you; it will make far more wasps angry than your initial few for what gain to you?

Result: more danger, rather than security for America.

Israel and Palestine

In addition to Iraq, there are also the troubles of the Middle East. Perhaps one of the best ways to combat Muslim extremism would be to put our efforts into trying to solve this problem; Tony Blair has said this in the past week. Bush, however, seems not to care for this problem. When he has shown an interest, it has been biased to the extreme towards the Israelis; not exactly a good place to start for a mediator between the warring parties.

The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is complicated. As Bush is so fond of saying, Bush sees things in simple terms. Therefore, to Bush, the trouble in the Middle East isn’t something that he can solve, so it is instead brushed under the rug; leaving hopes for peace to whither and die.

“Moral” — a.k.a. Evangelical Christian Right — Issues

One of the reasons the Bush was re-elected was because he managed to mobilise the large population of Evangelical Christians to come and vote by saying that he opposes gay marriage, abortions and stem-cell research.

The first isn’t something I have any particular opinion about. The second I believe is a right that should be preserved. The third — non-funding of stem cell research — is completely stupid. Stem-cell research has the potential to transform medicine and Bush is set against it. The potential is taking cells that would otherwise be useless and making many, many people better using these cells; including many people that don’t have any hope using today’s medicine. How anyone can be opposed to such research is beyond stupid, to my comprehension.

Economy

It seems that Bush’s main economic aim is to make the rich better off and the poor worse off. Need I say more?

Summary

So, in summary, Bush’s progress against terrorism is to invade Iraq, thereby inciting terrorism for zero-gain, and to ignore the widely recognised single best way to reduce terrorism. In the abortion issue I have no respect for the view point Bush is putting forward, and for stem-cells I believe he is completely wrong.

Well, what a surprise I don’t exactly have any respect for the man — a crazy, trigger-happy, simple-minded, religious nutcase.