Applying George W. Bush to Everyday Life

Foreword: Every once in awhile I feel the need to put back on my journalism hat and explain things to the masses. Also note, I am neither Republican nor Democrat.


It was great news to hear today that France had brokered a peace agreement between Georgia and Russia - who were mired in war. It's also a shame to know that George W's policies and actions would never have rendered such an outcome. By publicly calling out Russia's actions as 'unacceptable' and demanding they withdraw their troops, W has followed a tactic he's used throughout his presidency that has further diminished our standing in the world. France, on the other hand, went in and behind the scenes worked on something called 'diplomacy'.

Let's go in and apply W's tactics in everyday situations that we can all relate. Mind you, he publicly called three countries, North Korea, Iran and Iraq, the 'Axis of Evil'. W likes to reprimand and try and embarrass countries in the public. So think back to your Elementary school days (congratulations if you are in Elementary school and reading this - I could barely read), let's say the biggest, strongest and richest kid in the school called the three trouble-makers in the school 'punks' (see 'Axis of Evil'). What do you think these three kids are going to do? Stand down, and try and clean up their act?

These are kids with their own personalities, their own friends (allies), and their own family members (constituents). Not saying their trouble-making actions are acceptable, but there is no way in heck they will go back to their friends and family and take being called a 'punk'. It's just going to make them more resilient. By no means will they challenge the strongest kid to a fight, but they will do everything in their power to undermine the authority of the self-appointed school hall monitor (see W). They may call him names (see Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) or ignore him (see Kim Jong Il), but they surely are not going to go out like a 'punk' in front of their friends and family. Everyone has their pride and honor and you CANNOT and should not take that away from them in a public forum.

For the school hall monitor, the only other option is to beat the kids up (see Saddam Hussein). Can the hall monitor beat everyone up? Maybe. But sooner or later, you find some kids that are almost as big, strong, and rich as you are (see Vladimir Putin and Hu Jintao). It's going to be harder to beat everyone up and half the school is beginning to tire of the well-intentioned hall monitor's act. Sooner or later, when you threaten and make demands from people who have their own strong personality, you start to be seen as the bully yourself. No kid in school wants one of their classmates telling them what to do and calling them out over the PA system.

France (see Nicolas Sarkozy), on the other hand, (a**holes they may be), was the kid who got along with the jocks, nerds, stoners - wasn't the biggest, strongest, or richest, but respected everybody. As such, the tweener kid went in and talked to the other kids, related, brought in some of the 'punk's' friends, reached mutual ground and probably presented scenarios that would be bad for all. This was done subtly, diplomatically, and tactfully - never escalating the situation into what could have turned into a cold-war and, worse case scenario, an epic after school fight between the two big kids and their friends.

W didn't have to tell the world he's the strongest kid in school - it's a well-known fact. You think Don Corleone needed to tell you what he could do to you? Still, he would sit his enemies down and politely impose his will and make them feel like they were doing him 'a favor'. AND it would be behind closed doors so they wouldn't be embarrassed and 'lose face'. For W it's too late to learn diplomacy. I just hope the next President can lead the world, having learned a thing or two in Elementary school.

Sincerely,
Kevin L.
The Silicon Valley Bachelor

Share this:

14 comments :

  1. This is one of the best blogs that you wrote so far. Finally you are not as s****** as what you told me ^_*

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is ridiculous and please be mindful of my remarks.

    George W. Bush's only criticism the way I see it is that he didn't act hard enough. Note Georgia is one of our strongest allies, not only have they supported us throughout Iraq but have a representative stable democracy among a relatively unstable area. Using your analogy of a bully I also would like to use one of a friend turning his back on another in their time of need.

    And, note for Barack Obama fans out there, he is basically emulating President Bush's actions in this. His policy is no different that Bush's in this situation.

    I think we all have to understand there are critical issues and intricate details going on here. While I'm not implying we should have attacked Russia, I do think president Bush could have sent a stronger signal and for any matter of politics only in hindsight can I make these observations.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ryan, thanks for the comment, but I think you're missing the point here. I do not argue that Georgia is an ally and that we need to come to their defense - I only argue with the method that it's been done.

    ReplyDelete
  4. (white flag) I am not here to make any comments. I just want to incert a link for your reference and ask a few questions.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aYNNs1Xc2aNA&refer=home

    Kevin, please update "the biggest, strongest and richest kid in the school" to "one of the biggest, stronggest and poorest kids in school" (my own opinion)

    1. I always wonder why we always want to be the first one to protect other countries? (what happen to other people????)

    2. What are the duties of United Nations?

    3. When we have such high deficit, and some of the works are being forced to lower their salary to $6.25/hr, should we be protected first?

    Just my own opinions ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  5. to anonymous

    1. All of NATO supports Georgia and strongly condemn Russia for their attacks
    2. The Purpose of the UN peace keepers is just that - "peace keeping" - when an armed conflict ceases they are brought in to help maintain order.
    3. Not sure what you are referring to here

    ReplyDelete
  6. To Ryan

    Thank you very much for your answers. I am more confused now =(

    1. If all of NATO support Georgia, why US is the only country send the troops so far?

    2. If the purpose of the UN is "peace keeping", then helping countries to solve their confliects should be one of their responsibilities. Right? (If the answer is "no", I think that I need to start my education from kindergarten again.)

    3. I am so sorry that I did not give you the whole story about this one. The CA state government is "proposing" (no objection will be accepted) to lower their employees salary to $6.25/hr until the CA state government cover their deficit. Per their announcement, they will reimburse the difference of the salary after the deficit is covered (if you haven't die by that time).

    Any comment is highly appreciated.
    (I haven't write so many words for a long time @_@)

    ReplyDelete
  7. wow you started such a stimulating political debate. how come you don't blog like this more often!

    ReplyDelete
  8. to anonymous

    First off no one has sent them troops.

    Second you are absolutely correct, however it's always POST conflict, so perhaps now would be the time for the UN to step in.

    Peacekeeping, as defined by the United Nations, is "a way to help countries torn by conflict create conditions for sustainable peace."[1] Peacekeepers monitor and observe peace processes in post-conflict areas and assist ex-combatants in implementing the peace agreements they may have signed. Such assistance comes in many forms, including confidence-building measures, power-sharing arrangements, electoral support, strengthening the rule of law, and economic and social development. Accordingly UN peacekeepers (often referred to as Blue Beret because of their light blue berets or helmets) can include soldiers, civilian police officers, and other civilian personnel.

    Thirdly, I don't know much about this topic so I can't comment.

    ReplyDelete
  9. note - i want to correct my statement that no one has sent troops.

    to clarify i meant to say for military support, the troops America has sent is for humanitarian aid.

    ReplyDelete
  10. To Margie: I will give you two tickets to the gun show so that you can reevaluate your statement. Furthermore, I slept with your mother.

    To Em: You can have two tickets to the gun show too, just so that I can show off my biceps to you. As for your request, I tend to stay away from deep thoughts, they hurt my brain. I blacked out yesterday upon completion of this blog post.

    To Anonymous: You raise a lot of good questions, and it's thoughtful from someone who has learned it growing up in another country. One thing I do agree with from the Bush Administration, is that the UN sometimes isn't very effective, and is slow to react. I think the US must be the leader in many 'international' situations, but do it in a tactful, respectful and if as a last resort, in a way that 'can't be refused'.

    ReplyDelete
  11. glad to see me comments count....

    ReplyDelete
  12. To Ryan: I was hoping if I just ignored you, you would go away!

    But if you insist, I will give you two tickets to the gun show too.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Waooooo....what a productive conversation!!! What's the topic for tomorrow ^_^

    ReplyDelete

 
Copyright © Silicon Valley Bachelor . Designed by OddThemes | Distributed By Gooyaabi Templates