2., 2-a.: I was not complaining that 8 years was too short for a president to rule. One thing this does is it allows for a certain level of instability, on a small scale. This helps alleviate pressure which holds off large-scale instability - revolutions and the like. Another, probably related, thing it does is keeps any one figure from dominating the nation. The first term is about figuring out where everything is and getting re-elected; the second term is about doing whatever the hell you want and however much you can because you can't be re-elected again.
What I was saying was that it seemed, to me, silly for Bush to say what he said, that America cannot be doubted. I continued that in 2-a so I won't repeat that. Also I will point out that while there is some shift in how a country is viewed when it changes head, the fundamental body of the country remains.
3. Adam wrote, in response to my 3: "Then the implication is that the relationship was cozy in 1991."
Let's see, IIRC Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, so the implication is that the US was cozy up until then. Which is true. So, no, I see nothing about 1991.
3-a, 3-b. As a response to what Adam wrote as a response to my 3-a and 3-b, I'm gonna reprint what I wrote from 3-b and add commentary:
[this is John's original]"If I had thought of it..."
This points to earlier comments about my writing my original comments while the State of the Union address was going on. I wanted to put down comments as they happened, to give my thoughts as they came, not, in my usual fashion, wholly over-wrought. The Kuwait bit was just what came to mind and typed it, nothing sinister, nothing conspiratorial, nothing grand.
"...I would've used a more recent example, such as Bush (or was it Powell?) saying that they would follow through with the vote in the UN Security Council authorizing the invasion (well, maybe "suggesting the invasion" would be better phrasing here),"
To clarify, this LA Times article begins "President Bush vowed Thursday to bring the confrontation over disarming Iraq to a head within days, saying he will push for a U.N. Security Council vote even if it means defeat for the U.S. request to use force." There was a resolution to the Security Council from the US, UK and Spain. The resolution was withdrawn because it was going to fail, and since there was no actual vote they could blame it all on France rather than the members of the Security Council that were not US, UK, Spain or Bulgaria.
I neither claimed nor thought that Bush was going to stop the invasion if the UNSC voted their resolution down.
I'm going to include Adam's response to 4 with my comments on his response to my comments at 8:34p, since these are linked/the same.
And I'm gonna leave the comments on Marxism (ala 5) until later as well
