Feedback regarding George Bush
George W. (and every president) should not have the option to attack
anyone without Congress' votes, certainly not with nukes or other
large-scale destructive weapons. He's always the brawling drunkard; these
days, he's drunk with power.
Unfortunately, Congress is so crooked and lame we frequently get into
undeclared wars, which we either start or expand, because too many that are
too stupid are too rich and powerful. (In Congress they're too sold out.
They aren't thinking of peace, just photo-ops and re-election.)
Plus, many of those ultra-rich seem to be socialist, want to limit
(thus, control) the world population. Population/birth control means less
soldiers for this country, less rabble that might bite the hand that taxes
and feed them.
On the other hand, Jimmy Carter sort of helped wreck democracies in Iran and
Nicaragua; and he gave away the Panama canal. We need to control that
so we can move war ships, etc. back and forth as needed--it provides an
excellent regional deterrent to attacks.
I used to think Carter was quite different from the other usual hawk
politicians, but he belongs to the same clubs. It's often hard to tell who
really owns whom.
North Korea is a smoking sack of crap, and they have successfully
blackmailed us repeatedly, promising peace for nuclear reactors, all sorts
of stuff, while systematically starving their own people, etc. I don't
how much China controls them, but it appears they are the polling part of
the Commie Party---to check how much with which they can get away. THEY
the guys, since they're terrorists, with whom we should NEVER negotiate.
But as you point out--they got no riches (oil) to pilfer, so we let them
have their way. The U.N. always backs up the worst dictators, too, the
Politicians like to have evil regimes to help scare taxpaying citizens &
Congressmen. A lot of them play along, while being blowhards. Iraq's
Hussein gets too far out of line, because he scares people in his region,
especially the ever-whining Israeli.
I never could understand why they let Castro run free, but he mostly was
just a blowhard. And he WAS real popular with the liberal lefties back in
the `50's--it was before the media let people know he was a commie. I
John Kennedy sort of let too much out of the bag, because HE wasn't on the
inside of the usual socialist clubs. He rubbed a lot of the establishment
the wrong way. But Castro was evil at times to his own people, not much
better than Hussein, just on a tiny scale.
About the only thing other than war is a combined effort of countries NOT to
trade with evil regimes. But the dictators let their people suffer when
things get bad. How can a dictator bully be forced to play the
game? They obviously are not interested in peace, let alone peace for
mankind, unless they can be in charge on mankind (e.g., Hillary).
But if we had a good president, it would still be difficult to use
diplomacy and trade sanctions on guys like Castro, Hussein, Stalin--they
can't be MADE to care, it's apparently not in their genes.
Our presidents lately have demagogued, while bombing relatively
defenseless places. That should probably be a war crime, but who is there
in power that cares? Most everyone in power wants to keep what they have,
if not take even more.
One option is to become isolationist. I don't think passivity--ala
Ghandi--is viable, because the bullies will kill you if you keep turning the
other cheek. So the big stick, like nukes, should be kept for deterrence,
but we should talk softly. Bush feels he has to shout, because his head is
so far up his ass.
How can we manifest peace on
earth if we do not include everyone (all races, all nations, all religions, both
sexes) in our vision of Peace?
The WorldPeace Banner
The WorldPeace Sign
To the John WorldPeace Galleries Page
To the WorldPeace Peace Page