mvd
6 juli 2014, 15:41
George W. Bush is in ultraprogressief Vlaanderen een van de meest gehate presidenten. Obama daarentegen is een halfgod voor diezelfde progressieven. Obama kreeg de Nobelprijs voor de Vrede, en ging zogezegd de wereld veranderen. Uiteraard beging Obama misdaden tegen de mensheid en bleek hij even slecht, of zelfs een stuk slechter dan zijn voorganger.
Maar wie weet nog met welk platfrom Bush campagne voerde in 2000?
There may be some moments when we use our troops as peacekeepers, but not often
We ought to have foreign aid. Foreign aid needs to be used to encourage markets and reform. Often we just spend aid and we feel better but it ends up being spent the wrong way. An egregious example is Russia where IMF loans ended up in the pockets of powerful people and didn’t help the the nation. I don’t want to see the IMF as a [means to bail out bad loans]. It needs to be available for emergency situations. I want to make sure the return is good
I’m not sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say this is the way it’s got to be. I want to empower people. I want to help people help themselves, not have government tell people what to do. I just don’t think it’s the role of the United States to walk into a country and say, we do it this way, so should you. We went into Russia, we said here’s some IMF money. It ended up in Chernomyrdin’s pocket. And yet we played like there was reform. The only people who are going to reform Russia are Russians. I’m not sure where the vice president’s coming from, but I think one way for us to end up being viewed as the ugly American is for us to go around the world saying, we do it this way, so should you. I think the United States must be humble and must be proud and confident of our values, but humble in how we treat nations that are figuring out how to chart their own course.
If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll resent us. If we’re a humble nation, but strong, they’ll welcome us. Our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power. And that’s why we’ve got to be humble and yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom. We’re a freedom-loving nation. If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll view us that way, but if we’re humble nation, they’ll respect us.
I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don’t think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we’ve got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president believes in nation-building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9SOVzMV2bc
http://www.ontheissues.org/George_W__Bush_Foreign_Policy.htm
George Bush was ook tegen de missies in Somalië en Haïti, en wilde troepen verminderen in de wereld (o.a. de Balkan). Hij voerde campagne met een min of meer non-interventionistisch programma. Na 9/11 bleef daar natuurlijk niks van over.
Het bevestigt dat de echte macht in de VS eigenlijk niet bij de presidenten zit, maar bij de banken en de lobbygroepen.
Maar wie weet nog met welk platfrom Bush campagne voerde in 2000?
There may be some moments when we use our troops as peacekeepers, but not often
We ought to have foreign aid. Foreign aid needs to be used to encourage markets and reform. Often we just spend aid and we feel better but it ends up being spent the wrong way. An egregious example is Russia where IMF loans ended up in the pockets of powerful people and didn’t help the the nation. I don’t want to see the IMF as a [means to bail out bad loans]. It needs to be available for emergency situations. I want to make sure the return is good
I’m not sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say this is the way it’s got to be. I want to empower people. I want to help people help themselves, not have government tell people what to do. I just don’t think it’s the role of the United States to walk into a country and say, we do it this way, so should you. We went into Russia, we said here’s some IMF money. It ended up in Chernomyrdin’s pocket. And yet we played like there was reform. The only people who are going to reform Russia are Russians. I’m not sure where the vice president’s coming from, but I think one way for us to end up being viewed as the ugly American is for us to go around the world saying, we do it this way, so should you. I think the United States must be humble and must be proud and confident of our values, but humble in how we treat nations that are figuring out how to chart their own course.
If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll resent us. If we’re a humble nation, but strong, they’ll welcome us. Our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power. And that’s why we’ve got to be humble and yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom. We’re a freedom-loving nation. If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll view us that way, but if we’re humble nation, they’ll respect us.
I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don’t think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we’ve got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president believes in nation-building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9SOVzMV2bc
http://www.ontheissues.org/George_W__Bush_Foreign_Policy.htm
George Bush was ook tegen de missies in Somalië en Haïti, en wilde troepen verminderen in de wereld (o.a. de Balkan). Hij voerde campagne met een min of meer non-interventionistisch programma. Na 9/11 bleef daar natuurlijk niks van over.
Het bevestigt dat de echte macht in de VS eigenlijk niet bij de presidenten zit, maar bij de banken en de lobbygroepen.