http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5369198.stm

discusses threats made to Pakistan, by the Bush regime.

I have long ago come to the conclusion that George W is
just far too stupid to be prez. With that kind of foreign
policy, they need not be amazed that they are hated in
many countries. Given George's people skills, enemies
will appear from everywhere!

If I had my way, I'd bring back Bill and perhaps pay
Monika a good salary to keep him amused between matters
of State :) The world would certainly benefit enormously!

I don’t want to state the obvious here, Yabby, but the Republican Party in the US does not select its presidential candidates on the basis of brain power or grasp of world affairs or history, and has not done so for some time. If it were the case, do you think George W. would have been the best they could come up with from a pool of 280 million people? The desirable selection criteria are ability to read an autocue, a folksy manner, and not having too many ideas of your own that may come into conflict with those of the people who do, in fact, run the country. Having a dementing brain disease is no disqualification. (Oh, come on, do you really believe no one noticed until after Reagan finished his second term?).

Setting up a compliant patsy as the nominal figurehead of a government has been a standard practice for hundreds, if not thousands of years of human political history. The Republicans are not doing anything new here.

Notice how George Bush and Ahmadinejad have the same close beady eyes and tight lipped expressions.Could there be madness in both their methods?

Bush should have fixed Afghanistan first.They don't have enough troops there for long term stability,let alone Iraq.Now we learn that they we threatening Pakistan with oblivion.In the light of all the lies,the American public don't have the stomach for protracted conflicts.Their Muslim opponents have been doing it for centuries and some know nothing else but conflict.Bush needs another Sept 11 to keep the momentum of this war going and to win the next election.Would they be tempted to just drop their guard a little?

This problem isn't going to be fixed just with guns.We have to engage the Muslim communities around the world honestly and simply tell them what we think.John Howard and Peter Costello are the only Politicians of the Western World who have had the courage to spell out the reality.We need honest debate to happen within the Muslim community so no one feels intimidated by the potential violent tendencies of a few.You can't make omelets without cracking egg shells.

Snout, yup about your post, but thats exactly the problem. If a
world leader is regarded as an idiot, he's not going to achieve
much. Thats exactly why America is so hated around the world.
Its also why America is slowly going down the proverbial gurgler.

It seems to me the problem in America is that Americans are
so puritanical, that they are far more concerned with the
sexual habits of their leaders, then if they have any brains
at all. At election time, George scares them about Osama
being under the bed and little old ladies believe him and vote
for him etc.

"Could there be madness in both their methods?" I'd say so
Arjay, they both seem a little nuts to me, thats the worry,
as hundreds of millions of peoples lives are at stake here.

Arjay, I have little doubt there is a fair dose of madness in the methods of both Washington and Tehran. I don’t know about the beady eyes comparison, or enough about Ahmadinejad to know whether he is a patsy of other forces of if he belongs to the Outwit, Outplay and Outlast school of politics – the “Survivor” school. I suspect it’s the latter, but the Persians have a couple of thousand years head start on the Americans in politicking – nothing would surprise me.

There are numerous advantages to the Patsy style of government, particularly in a democracy. A patsy can draw the flack away from the real power brokers, including that unfortunate feature of US presidential politics, the would be assassin’s bullet. Additionally, a well chosen Patsy is usually easier to control and spin doctor than an intelligent or independently minded politician, particularly one who might, like any human being, have character flaws such as a congenital inability to keep his pants zipped.

"There are numerous advantages to the Patsy style of government, particularly in a democracy."

There are also many disavantages, as we can see with George!
Perhaps it reflects the sophistication of the voters. In Europe
a bit of hanky panky by a politician would have hardly raised
an eyebrow, IMHO they have a better understanding of the big
picture, unlike puritanical America.

Amusing was last week in NY. Whilst George preached to the UN
about so called terrorists, Clinton held his own "Clinton
World Forum" down the road, to address the world's problems.
Some of the world's best brains attended, like Buffett, Gates
and Branson. Various Presidents turned up too. Still today
Clinton wins respect from other world leaders, whilst
George is seen as a bit of a buffoon. Clearly having a
patsy for prez has its own problems, as America is finding
out the hard way.