Thank you. Just... thank you.

[hermionesviolin]

I was thinking last night. All of us complain and bitch about President Bush, but in the future, 20 years later in textbooks, he won't be remembered for all of this shit. Not for the rejected environmental laws or the pretzel or the Patriot Act. The only people who'll learn about the messed up elections are AP US History Students. Years later, Bush will be remembered for liberating two countries that everyone was afraid of.

Whenever Afghanistan was mentioned in the past, you'd hear about how horrible it was for women. Now that's no more. Girls can actually get an education. For Iraq, everyone hated Saddam (if you said you didn't, it's b/c you're afraid of getting shot) and people pitied the Iraqis. Now that's no more. All because someone decided not to sit back and watch and talk about what's going on, but to actually go out there and change it.

I'm not Republican. I'm not a Bush-supporter. I wouldn't have voted for him. But you must admit, knocking down two horrible regimes during a single term is pretty up-there. Yes, a lot of people were killed, but all of this would happen eventually. It just waited for the person with enough guts to do it. Even if you hate Bush, you have to agree that it's going to be better without the Taliban and Saddam. I didn't know how much Iraqis despised the latter until they were knocking down statues and smacking them with sandals. That's amazing.

You can be the person that leans back and complains about what's going on, or you can be the person that goes out there and changes it.

It makes me wonder. Perhaps the 2000 election wasn't as wacked-out as we think. The butterfly ballot scandal came out of nowhere; it was such a random thing, with a huge effect. If those old people in Florida voted correctly, Gore would've won. If Gore was president, all of this undoubtedly wouldn't have happened. Women in Afghanistan would be stoned in streets and people would be afraid for their lives to speak their minds in Iraq. It makes me wonder if this is the way it was meant to be, if this is a plan of someone above us.

Comments

Re: I can't agree with this article . . .

[evil-laugher.livejournal.com]

Is that (excluding the pretzel) a good thing?

No... I'm not saying that's a good thing. My point is that a lot of people make that a huge issue right now, but it's not what will be remembered some decades in the future. Not that it's not important right now. I hear a lot from friends complaining about the latest environmental bills being rejected, how abortion is being threatened by Bush's prescense. They're not going to talk about all of this in the textbooks. They'll talk about the major governments he took out.

My main point of all of this is that a lot of people stand on the side and make the snide comments and complain about Saddam and so on. They don't like these awful regiments, but they don't do anything. It's been like this for years. Then Bush comes along and changes everything during his first term. I don't think we realize yet, but this is VERY important presidency. Knocking Saddam out is a huge thing. And it was done [pretend I'm snapping my fingers] just like that. Everyone wanted to do it, but didn't step forward. Bush wasn't all-talk. It takes a lot of guts to actually do and not say you'll do.

I'm not saying that the war is good or anything like that. I thought his sudden "He's hiding weapons!" was really desperate and random, but the war wasn't a surprise. I had thought that we'd been bombing them on-and-off already for years. Unless Saddam would drop dead from prostate cancer in the next few years, there was going to be a battle sooner or later.

Re: I can't agree with this article . . .

[lilithchilde.livejournal.com]

Before I respond, honey, I just want to say this: I'm definately not attacking you, although I disagree with some of the things you wrote.

My point is that a lot of people make that a huge issue right now, but it's not what will be remembered some decades in the future.

Hmm, see, we're still not in agreement, because environmental laws have a very definate impact on the future, and most likely a very very large one as well. My fear is that, because we're all so busy watching the big glittery "history being made" moments of this (in my opinion) reprehensible war, we'll let the environmental laws get chisled away at more and more, and by the time we realize it will be too late, some irrevocable damage will have been done.

I really couldn't care less about what they say about Bush in the textbooks. I care very much about what actually happens to this planet of ours.

Bush wasn't all-talk. It takes a lot of guts to actually do and not say you'll do.

This also bothers me a bit. Yes, as you've been saying, Bush took action. He did so with (in my opinion) incorrect reasoning, blatantly illegal procedures, and a chilling disregard for what anyone else thought. I really think that it's better to try and find alternate ways of fixing a situation, rather than rushing headlong into violence. Every other route must be tried first. Bush claimed that he had no other alternative, but really. I don't think he believed that himself.

(A little side-note: you were responding to laynamarya by describing Bush's actions with the saying, "wham-bam-thank-you-ma'm," originally used to describe quick casual sex in the sense where a man uses a woman, thanks her and is gone. This has traditionally been considered derogatory towards women and I find it frighteningly appropriate.)

At any rate, I see your last point about the "sooner or later" bit, but at the same time I feel as though war wasn't inevitable, as though this country should have made a very great effort to find an alternative, and so, I disagree.

That said, I'm sorry if you're unhappy that your writing is being critiqued like this . . . when I read it I thought it was an article hermionesviolin had found somewhere on the internet, as she often does. I negligently failed to click on the link to your journal until after my initial comment, and therefore didn't realize it was a private musing. I absolutely respect your right to post your thoughts on your journal, and if you'd like me to stop commenting, I will.

However, I thought that your entry brought up some important issues that I wanted to discuss, (primarily with hermionesviolin, since she posted it here, but also with anyone else, and certainly the author herself since the opportunity arose), and my intention was merely healthy discussion, never personal attack.

I hope we're not scaring you off from Smith with all this. ;)

Re: I can't agree with this article . . .

[evil-laugher.livejournal.com]

I just didn't expect I'd have to argue and defend my stupid post. This is more work than I wanted.

With the environmental issues, they can be overturned later on. When Bush is out of office and we have a different person up there, they'll be repealed. All the cruddy laws that've been passed will eventually be taken care of, I'm certain. The environmental damage done before that time? Who knows. But I'm an optimist, so I'm not panicing.

The thing with the textbook... that didn't really have a purpose. It was just a thought, a statement. Just something to think about.

I'm not going to argue that there weren't other ways to do this. Bush was desperate for a war. He was looking for it. But I bet a ton of leaders, past and present, wanted to do the same thing, but didn't want the dirty work. Now Bush gets all the glory (not to us, but to the people down the road). Everyone saw Saddam as a problem, and the only ways to get rid of it would be to have an invasion, to wait for the regime to collapse on itself, or wait for him to die off. I don't know how well peace talks work with stubborn dictators with hidden bunkers and torture rooms.

Re: I can't agree with this article . . .

[hermionesviolin.livejournal.com]

I just didn't expect I'd have to argue and defend my stupid post. This is more work than I wanted.

Again, my apologies. I'll be happy to take you out to lunch this fall to make up for it. :)

I really appreciate all the calm, rational, mature discussion that has gone on in this post, though. lilithchilde said "I hope we're not scaring you off from Smith with all this," but honestly this kind of discussion is one of my favorite things about this place.

(And to weigh in on this discussion, Word to "I don't know how well peace talks work with stubborn dictators with hidden bunkers and torture rooms." One of the problems with advocating a civilized way of dealing with a situation is that it only works when all involved parties are civilized.)