Alright, you asked for it. I’ll try to keep my wits about me, though the emotional base upon which this argument is built is quite tumultuous.
Why would I say that I “hate” George W. Bush? Isn’t that a little strong? Isn’t he just your average politician? Isn’t this just some natural extension of your overall left-leaning political views? No, not really. […] …the final mark of disrespect… the gut-level intuition that leads me to label him an EVIL man, rather than a merely despicable one is his casual contempt for human life. There aren’t words to describe the horror I feel when I see Bush look into the nation’s television cameras with that sadistic little smirk and tell us euphemistically, as if half-choking on a stifled snort that our enemies… “let’s put it this way: they are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies.” […] When I look at George W. Bush, I don’t see a patriot. I see a lying, psychopathic narcissist. And it pains me, it grieves me, it WOUNDS me to realize that this puts me not only in the minority… but in the “whacko fringe.”
<
p>— ‘Geoff’, Why I hate George W. Bush (via Len)
309 Responses
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.
here here
I hate George Bush too, and I think your site is excellent.
He’s a liar and a murderer. Sending young men and women to Iraq knowing that they face certain death; and for what reason? He has sat in front of the television camera and lied to the American public. How can he be trusted?
And he’s such a good Christian
I hate (also detest, loath, deplore, revile and despise) George W. Bush because his persona is the smiling, vacuous and innocuous symbol of a movement rooted in mendacity, short-sightedness, venality and macho oppression. He stands for the new fascism, where reason, compassion, social justice and empathy are things to be sneered at, as the nation prostrates itself before the new altar of expediency. In the neo-con world it is truly dog eat dog, and people either fuck or get fucked. Anyone who would have it otherwise, or merely argue that laws and governments are intended to make it otherwise, is jeered as weak (i.e. a fuckee, not a fucker like the “alpha male” neo-cons, the self appointed fuckers of the world) and simple-minded. Ad hominem attack is their form of debate. They appeal to the basest motives of their audience (impoverish your neighbor before he gets yours) while blinding them to their own oppression. They indulge in lies piled on lies on lies. Cynical, classist manipulators with nothing but contempt for the people whose trust they fraudulently solicit and then betray, they have mastered the art of dressing up divisive appeals to selfishness and greed in nobler looking clothing. Naturally, like all scoundrels, they are fond of using lecturing other people over what to do in their bedrooms, or in their homes - while ignoring the most basic commands of religion regarding social responsibility. My God, I hate all of them, each and every one of the cynical lying bastards who put, and keep, Bush where he is, and drag us all down, betraying what I once believed in as the noble american experiment.
I hate him too, fucking hate him, and I don’t even live in the same country! I hate from a distance, projecting it over thousands of miles into his black, black, evil little chimp-man heart. I can’t believe that such a retard has been allowed to take control of the most powerful nation in the world. Everything he’s touched he’s broken in his whole life, he should’ve been drowned at birth, the shit. He’s fucking retarded, the fucking fuck.
Nice to see some intelligent comments (sarcasm intended)
i agree whole heartedly. we need to get more people voting, so we can vote against him.
I really see no grounded arguements here. This is just liberals ripping on Bush for doing the inevitable. War, unfortunately, has been around for as long as humans have, for it is a part of human nature. To know and hate human nature is a better target of your rage; what you do is hate a single human for the consequences of a collective human nature. Don’t hate the player hate the game.
no grounded arugments is right. the earlier comments should check some broadcasts from larry king either in early 2003 or late 2002 when he had Bill Clinton on. he gave Clinton an open shot at Bush about the Iraq thing, and instead of blasting him, he said “when we left office we knew he had WMD” “we couldn’t find them”. it was the one time I had respect for him. He was an effective president, but he conducted himself poorly with bad decisions concerning his private activites. You spend your whole life to get the ultimate job of running the country and you waste it on petty affairs. So instead of being remembered for the job you did, you are MORE remembered for the sex scandals etc…. but I digress… Clinton said, “we had the same intelligence that every president has had before and after” “it is not an easy job” I would start to think that most of you probably agree with professor Dewdney on his theory than to believe that this threat should have been handled before. consider this, Clinton KNEW about al queda. HOW? remember the USS Cole? or how about 1993 attempted bombing of the WTC? They failed to act then and as a result we got 9/11. Boy, think how many lives could have been spared had Clinton and Gore decided to start a campaign to get osama bin laden? They kept tabs on him then too. That is neither here nor there and is certainly in the past. Maybe the best thing Bush could’ve done was wait until he got osama, THEN iraq. But Saddam definately needed to go. When he goes on trial, he must face is accusers. Those whom he murdered and there surviving relatives. I could eat my words “if” O’niell is NOT a disgruntled ex-employee with an ax to grind with his accusations about Bush from day one want to go after saddam. but for now it is just heresay and the best way to boost sales on a book and make money. DATED FACT: the plot to dive planes into the WTC was uncovered in 1995 or 1996, purely by accident when two al-queda members started a fire in their hotel room while making loads of bombs with timers etc… was on CNN this past sunday- Aaron Brown ” Seeds of Terror” check it out before you go flying off the handle…. And remember, Bad officials are elected by the good citizens who do not vote! FACT: difference between Democrats and Republicans is this- Democrats will always vote PARTY no matter what! Republicans will support their party, but will not vote party if they feel that their “guy” is not a good choice! We get the best government when we change it every four years, that goes for state, federal and local!! That way the corruption can’t set in!!!CAPICE?
Actually, RobSix, if you take a look at O’Neil’s new book that’s out, it’s suggested that the Hawks like Wolfowitz have been planning since the election in 2000 (since George Sr’s administration lost, probably) that they needed to go back in and finish the war. While I agree that SH was a Bad Man (tm), and war is sometimes a necessary evil, I’m very hard pressed to understand why we had to be in both Afgahnistan and Iraq at the same time, for the same reason (preemptory strikes), when at least part of the reason was that Bush Sr’s administration team was still smarting from not being able to finish the job in ‘92. It was unnecesary then, and the only necessity for going into Iraq this time was to get our hands on Iraqi oil (one of the largest reserves in the Mid East).
I understand that it’s hard to find biological weapons if they don’t want to be found, but given the tack we’re currently taking with North Korea, Libya and Iran, I’m to believe that war with Iraq was the only solution? Or that our nations’ Black Ops teams couldn’t do a better job of counter-terror when they’re not in a war, and free to assasinate anyone they can get away with?
And if it was about dictatorships and human rights oppression, what are we doing about Somalia, Burundi, Indonesia, Palestine, Morocco, and on and on… Maybe even the folks leading our own troops need a refresher course?
One final bit—if you didn’t bother reading the original article that lead up to this discussion, then you just missed all of the grounded arguments that the others were commenting on. OTOH, I gotta agree, Reb needs a few more words in his vocabulary.
Hm.
I fail to see your reasoning for why we are in Iraq. We have not seized any oil yet and as you can see the prices of oil in America have not dropped significantly becuase of it. The government can only store some 700 billion barrels in reserve, a number that has not increased during the war. The only war for oil was fought in the early nineties when Saddam invaded Kuwait becuase they were selling oil at a price below the agreed OPEC standard. Thats blood for oil, my friend. Going to war with Iraq was unavoidable because Saddam would never have stepped down from power without a fight, though he should have never come to power. I believe the United states offered for him to resign before we started bombing Baghdad. War is a necessary evil and one that won’t go away, until everyone across the world acts with the same social selflessness. Bush may have wanted to finish a Family vendetta but his approval ratings have risen with the capture of Saddam. As for the grounded arguements that you mention in the original article, geoff rips on bush for having contempt for america and contempt for life. This arguement is ludacris.
“In the end, it comes down to the simple issue of character.” - geoff He may not be an agreeable character by your parents standards but this does not condemn him. (focus on his actions)
I Fucking hate GW Bush Without even taking into consideration what happened in iraq & 9/11 and preteding it never happened I still Fucking hate that son of a bitch, everything he has said or done has in some way or another made me angry at how in the hell he was put into office.
I Fucking hate GW Bush Without even taking into consideration what happened in iraq & 9/11 and preteding it never happened I still Fucking hate that son of a bitch, everything he has said or done has in some way or another made me angry at how in the hell he was put into office.
Its ok Matt. You’re entitled to your opinion, would you like to explain why exactly you think that George Bush is letting this country down right now? Maybe we can spark some intelligent conversation out of you yet.
this says it all those are my reasons for disliking him…
I love my country but I hate George Bush and here’s why.
George Bush is a puppet and Karl Rowe is the puppetmaster. Bush is a quasi-charismatic talking head spewing the neo-con party line. These ultra-right wing power-mongers, who have been planning their rape and pilage of American coffers and social security reserves since Bush I, all the while disguising themselves as good christians, seek to circumvent the democratic process to force their agenda on America while making their friends in the oil & gas industry richer than their wildest dreams.
The US had the world’s sympathy following 9/11 and Bush squandered. Was it greed, corruption or just plain ol’ vanity, George? Regardless of the recent O’neil bombshell, it seems more than plausible that the Bush II admin was plotting the SH overthrow from the get-go to defend the good names of Reagan/Bush. Rememeber them? They were the good Americans that brought us Iran/Contra as well as supplying Saddam’s regime with WMD. Many years from now, when we’re still mired in mid-eastern politics, the Clinton doctrine of non- or minimal interference is going to look very smart because NO ONE WINS WARS OVER RELIGION OR IDEOLOGY. Look at the Jews and Palestinians as a case in point.
Back to why I hate Bush, though. A couple good concrete examples of the subversive neo-con plotting include the most recent Judicial Appt that was implemented during the congressional break and the re-districting fights in TX and CO. What is so wrong with ultizing the democratic process to seek what an admin wants to achieve? The problem, so it would seem from the Bush Admin, is that the system of checks and balances, won’t allow such extreme policies to be enacted And for good reason. It’s one of the key mechanisms our founding fathers sought to include in our government for just such cases.
Even though I hate George Bush, I find great comfort in knowing that each day when I awake from my restful slumber, I know that George Sr and George Jr are one day closer to death. And in death, they will meet the god they profess to worship and he will pass judgement upon them … and it won’t be pretty.
I hate this little asshole more than anybody. When thinking about Bush I literally get nauseous. It also pains me to think that this mediocre family will some day shit out another President. What I don’t understand, is how come the name Bush gives you political legitimacy? His dad was a lousy President. This current sack of shit will be rated one of the worst of all-time. If there is a hell, this fucker is going there. Because I gotta believe that God has a special place for those that quote the bible constantly, but never practice one concept in it.
What do you guys think of these Quotes?
“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Bill Clinton in 1998
“I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” — John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
“I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.” — Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
The previous adminstrations did know about the WMD that everyone bitchs about, except that during the eight years that they did nothing Saddam was able to remove and possibly sell them off. Applaud Bush for taking some action.
Ok Rob six you have proved two things, 1) lots of people were wrong about Whether saddam had WMDs as NONE have been found even now a year after the invasion, and 2) President Clinton, was smart enough not to act on intellegence he could not validate. Lets also not forget that when the congress passed the resolution allowing bush to attack that they (along with the american people) were under the faulty impression that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the american people based on claims such as WMDs, attempts to aquire uranium etc. All of these claims now clearly amount to a flaming sack of shit. What the iraq war really did was deflect attention and recources from afghanistan and al-Queda, comprimise the position of the UN, and effectivly undermine international sympathy that came about from the attacks of 9/11, and in short make the world a great deal less safe. Further more we now have the daunting task of establishing a democracy in a society where theocratic dictators are the norm and where people’s mindsets have been shaped by life times of oppression; you can bet if we fail this objective al-Queda will be crawling all over Iraq. It is a bit disheartening that the administration who is controlling this process is now down playing it in favor of thier braindead initiative to send people to mars during the biggest budget deficit in history. A deficit that I might add came after a budget surpluss on Clintons watch . In light of all of this I think it has been shown that it is your argument and not Geoff’s that is ludacris. How could a president who is concerned about peoples livers wage unnecessary war, at the expense of the real problems at hand and our international support, and at the same time piss away billoins of dollars to trasition a buget surplus into the biggest deficit in history. How can a man who went awol from the National Guard during vietnam presume to have the authority to send young men to thier deaths in the name of a personal vendetta? To make matters worse he is actually trying to decrease thier benefits. Face it rob you are more partisan than anyone on this site because while you can site obscure points and quotes to your favor the OVERWHELMING BODY of evidence refutes them all. Bush is scum, he is a dangerous, incompetent, self interested, warmongering, alcoholic, greedy, hypocritical, puppet of an imbecile. Have fun refuting that one.
GWB rules keep the spics outta office. C me on Smasckdown this week yall
Is Garrison for real? I guess I couldn’t tell with hois lilly white hood on.
Hurin- The fact that there were no WMD’s found in Iraq is exactly the point of this war. Unfortunately, they weren’t confiscated so they are out there somewhere. Thats where President Clinton’s lack of action got us. You must admit that the government, with all its information gathering resources knows a little more than you do. Maybe if you tapped that source then you would see the real “overwhelming body of evidence”. Until you do, rest assured that there is one less nation out there that poses a threat to your loved ones. Please let me know what this body of evidence is that you speak of.
Robsix- The fact that no WMDs were found has absolutely no bearing on whether or not they actually exist/have existed. Maybe you are familiar with David Kay the Bush administration appointed CIA weapons inspector that recently stepped down? In his report as related by the new york times yesterday he found evidence of little capacity for the actual production of WMDs within Iraq, stating that most of the programs had been abandoned after Bush Sr.’s gulf war. Kay also painted a picture of a Saddam Hussein who was loosing touch with reality and being duped by his scientists into financing phoney Bio/Chem weapons programs, the funding of which were then funneled into different avenues that would make the scientists money. Finally there is the issue of the nuclear program; which Mr. Kay said could have been a fledgling at best, nowhere near what would be nesessary to produce bombs. The fact is these are not new findings, since the end of the war there have been people in Iraq looking for weapons and evidence of thier production and so far I beleive noone has even found more than this. To cite Kay’s report once more saddam had nothing in the way of actual deployable weapons on the night of the invasion . It is true I do not know everything that is to be known about the intellegence that was used to sell this war, however plenty of information is available to the public concerning it, and not the least of it is comming from the mouths of those who were or are working for the CIA. Furthermore if solid evidence was available substantiate the Bush Administration’s claims then why hasn’t it been released? It sure would releive a lot of criticizm from those who beleive we had no substantial cause for the war. You seem to be operating under the assumption that this intelegence does in fact exist but is sitting in some top secret file at Langley. So if this information exists what would the line of reasoning be for not releasing it? Could it be that W and the CIA are working together conspiracy style to see who is “patriotic” enough not to question anything the government does? If you want to convince people who have better than, say, half a brain, that Iraq was more than a negligable threat to the USA then you need evidence of your own. Thus far you have produced three quotes, and no findings. OK, your turn. Convince me, I dare you.
So wait…the best one of you can come up with is a commercial?
Or…I Fucking Hate GWB?
The liberal side to this argument could mount substantial competition to those running for the democratic nomination in 2004. Unfortunately, that isn’t saying very much for either of you…
Not a COMMERCIAL dumbass, A NEWSPAPER. which i might add is the best you could do without access to government primary sources. Its funny to hear conservatives who spent eight years cringing at Clinton’s sex life try to refute a valid argument about real problems.
I’m sorry Hurin ( who names their kid that anyway?), but you fail to see the point of the whole exercise. These qoutes that you blast go to show that a lot of people, including David Kay, thought that there were weapons of mass Destruction in Iraq. Now that there are no longer weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq does not mean that there have not been weapons there. Still, you have not presented an overwhelming body of evidence, and the definition of evidence is now going to be defined for you: Physical fact. Here are some physical facts that he was not a negligable threat. Saddam committed genocide on his own people (the kurds). He also invaded kuwait becuase they were selling oil at a price below the opec standard. This is your evidence. If you can’t agree with that then its fine but you’re going to have to live with it, and with Bush.
Rob, though I am unable to produce physical evidence in the form of data collected by weapons inspectors, secondary sources such as newspapers in such cases as this may function as evidence provided that they are a factual representation of the findings documented in primary sources. This puts us on the same playing feild for finding evidence concerning the existance of WMDs (unless you know where to find the primary sources in which case please enlighten me to their location). If I am not mistaken most of the prewar intellegence was derived from spy satelites which could pick out certain suspicious activities that resembled weapons manufacture, however due to saddam specifics were not available. Under Kay’s inspection it was shown that these sights (mobile labs, flatbed trucks etc.) were really being used for bizzare activities such as manufacturing rocket fuel, a testement to Saddam’s growing senility. The fact is for better or worse the mixed reliance on UN inspectors and satelites, that formed much of the pre-war intelegence, was not adequite to accurately depict whether or not weapons were being manufactured. I fully understand that Saddam was a murderous bastard and do not doubt that he harbored Ill will toward the US. The major problem in my mind is that 1) the US attacked before sufficient evidence was compiled and certain claims made by the Bush administration were cleary illogical (There is no way in hell Iraq was enriching uranium purchased from niger with their resources)and 2) There was no UN resolution backing the US invasion, a move that not only damaged the apparent potency of the UN but also caused hostilities to form between the US and some of its allies. WMDs be damned, if the UN had been behind our country in Iraq I might be more sympathetic toward your point of view. This unilateral action is precisely why we have few friends in the global community these days. Another issue was and is the more imminent threat of al-Queda. Saddam is caught however bin-Laden remains at large, and guess which one was definitly a party to the last major attack on American soil. By attacking Iraq we spread our resources thin and allowed al-Queda more time to regroup, while crucially undercutting the rebuilding of afghanistan. Today we are already beggining to see the re-immergence of taliban fighters in rural afghanistan, and at very least this is a threat to there new government. The US position is pinned down in two places, and either one could become a haven for anti US sentiment and terrorist organizations. Sorry I know not all of this is about WMD, but I really feel we have been hung up on a relatively minor point for to long considering all the other exciting stipulations attatched to the Iraq blunder. While this might not constitute the “overwhelming body” promised (I conceived of the phrase to hastily it seems), I beleve it is substantial at least. As for whether I will have to live with Bush for more than another year that remains to be seen, it may be that not as many people agree with you as you think.
Hurin- First let me thank you for such a cordial response and let me, secondly, apologize for targeting your name in the previous response, it was immature and unnecessary. Though you may disagree with this statement it is still true. This war has been great for the economy, something we can both smile at. The keynesian economics of big deficit spending will someday payoff in spades. The rolling deficit will only be added to a large debt that never needs to be paid. Contrary to popular belief that debt will not really ever be paid off in full. Do you like what Bush has done for the economy.
Isn’t the current economic theory that the individual president doesn’t have any control over the immediate economy, and that the actions taken today are only felt approx. 8 years later? I seem to remember that number being thrown around in the last election, proving that Clinton/Gore didn’t provide the economic boost of the late 90’s. (FWIW, I think the Y2K bug created the spending and investment in technology. The Internet came about at such speed because big business and telco was upgrading all of their systems.)
OTOH, the tech bust was coming no matter what anyone says, and this recovery of the tech stocks is a natural pendulum reaction. There’s no reason Amazon’s stock should ever have been over $100/share. Plus, IT budgets were busted on Y2K solutions (so big business wasn’t investing in 2000/2001 — 3 years later, when tech systems are fully depriciated and ready to be replaced, IT folks are spending again…) and a number of other factors weigh in here. I don’t think that GWB’s economic theory (Which Greenspan Himself refused to endorse) is working like you think it is.
Rather, it’s making a lot of rich people richer, and since times are tough, rather than spending their money, the rich are packing it away for a rainy day.
I hardly think that the Estate Tax breaks are doing anyone any good in terms of getting lower health care or prescription drug costs. That’s the problem with GWB’s deficit spending. He’s going into deficit, giving up income, without realocating wealth in any inteligent manner, and creating unfunded mandates on the states like Homeland Security — btw, I’m not totally bagging on DHS, just that it’s up to the States to pay for DHS, and provide the services for DHS, and every upgrade in threat condition costs real money that has to be diverted from Head Start or any of a dozen other services that were funded before DHS came out of thin air.
Oh, and GWB is spending at a rate several times larger than any president previously has.
Taxes pay for society, and that’s a good thing. We can’t have society without paying for it. And personally, I hate the inconveniences, but I like having running water, stable utilities and roads, not to mention standardized immunizations, public health initiatives, housing and rehabilitation for criminals, homeless, and runaways, etc. Taxes pay for all of that, and when we vote to cut taxes, we vote to cut projects. The ability to pre-emptively strike and travel to Mars should be just as equally impacted as Head Start and Medicare, but it’s not under GWB. He cuts taxes, then increases spending on his unfounded, unproven pet projects, and lies to the public to make it happen, e.g., Nigerian Uranium.
That’s just not fiscally responsible.
Cps- I think reallocating wealth is the key phrase there. What is wealth? And who are you to determine what happens with someone else’s money? This is a fundamental issue. Conservatives do not want their money taken through taxes. We all should know that the most deaths happen at the first of the month becuase thats when welfare checks come out. What does that say about reallocating wealth? Did you know that there are certain Blockbusters that accept food stamps? Thats where some of the money goes… Reallocation of wealth does not work in this respect, economically.
OK. Ok. You all have very good points. I love a good political debate. I will try to make some valid points in regards to this discussion. Try not to flame me too hard. I will not say that I hate George W. I did not vote for him and I wouldn’t vote for him now either. After 9/11 he got such a huge amount of praise for being strong for America. Dah. I mean did he really have a choice? What else could he have done? Gone on national TV and say, “Holy CRAP! Now it is time to panic!” or “They finally beat us, lets surrender and do as they tell us!” Neither were an option. Being a herois only applicable if the person has a choice. GW did not. Next comes the whole “prior knowledge” idea. I cannot stand the man but lets think through this rationally. If he had reliable working knowledge he WOULD have stopped the attacks. I mean come on. WHat would he gain by not stopping them. He is a redneck dunderhead, not a cold hearted man capeable of treason. That just isn’t thinking that is productive. I do not believe that we should have been in Iraq or Kuwait in the 90’s. I know that the whole thing is about oil. Both Bushes come from Texas and they both have very strong interests in oil. Hello? See a connection? As for the war thing. My husband fought in the Persian Gulf, My father Vietnam, my grandfather WWII and my greatgrandfather in WWI. I know about war. I know that it is such a horrible, sad and tremendous thing that it should be avoided at all costs. Just because UN inspectors were not allowed into buildings doesn’t mean that we should declare war on someone. OK so we got Saddam out of office. Big Deal. Werent we supposed to be focusing on Bin Laden? Remember him? We were making no progress in finding him so geez maybe we can find some success in another war.
You can’t just start bombing the hell out of a country just because you don’t like the leader. Its none of our business. 9/11 would have never happened if we just minded our oum business. OK America is a wonderful country but just because Iraq doesnt do things the way we do they are evil. I know of the attrocities that Saddam committed against the people of his country but he is not in America. We see these pieces of news footage and we are supposed to swoon when we see a “reformed” country and its citizens stuffing their vootes into a ballot box. We breath this sigh of relief. AHHHHH look they are all democratic now. The way EVERYONE should be. JUST LIKE US. The whole manifest destiny bull. Can’t stand it.
Next, I do not like Bush because of his space exploration comments. He is going to pump BILLIONS of dollars in to space exploration. Ummmm, WHY? I mean it is great for the nerds to know how much Tang a lab rat can eat when at zero gravity! Hey lets not use the money on schools to in turn boost whole generations. Lets not give it to the Fostor care program that is dismal at best. Lets use it instead to look at some martian rocks. The whole idea just baffles me. Well that is it for now. I have a ton more to say on BUSH but it is way past my bed time.
Good comments tweedle, just wanted ot add a couple things to the space exploration comments. As it turns out I am a nerd myself (a Bio/Chem) major and the other day in a physics class I am taking we were talking about the possible benefits of such a mission. My professir , a Ph.D. in geophysics, made the assertion that there are really minimal benefits to sending a manned mission to mars, as a probe can take pictures, do chemical soil analysis and really any other such research one might desire, at a fraction of the price. His main point was that many more valuable projects could be funded for the cost of such an endeavor. My take is that Bush wants to show the Chinese up since they have recently been involved in certain space exploration initiatives.
Just wanted to Respond to Rob six’s comment on the reallocation of wealth too while I amm at it. Weather or not taxation is convinient for citizens it is a necessary evil americans first realized this under the articles of confederation some 200 years ago, Under the articles the central government could not tax and was utterly powerless as a result, as it had no money to do anything. This system failed miserably within several years of its creation and led to the draft of the constitution we now have in place. As for the comment about the deaths of the first day of the month I am not familiar with such a finding and I have to beleive if it is true a better statistical corellation could be made to explain it than the issuance of welfare checks. It is undeniable that someone has to pay for government programs be they education or defense, and I can think of noone better to do it than those who have the most moneyand are pretty much assured a comfortable lifestyle, like the Bush family for instance. Of course from what we have seen with the bush handling of the economy they obviously do not se it that way.
Guys, GWB is a good president, we all have our views, and we need to support our president no matter who it is i didnt like clinton but i still supported him because he was America’s president. So stop dissing and start supporiting throwing blame around really doesnt fix anything just move with the flow and hope for better luck next time. I bet half of you guys dont even vote. Now thats not saying much about your opinions.
So by this logic if say, Adolf Hitler came to power in America you would say to support him because he is our president. It is by a persons actions and not office that they are held accountable. Not saying that GWB compares to hitler, but it is dangerous not to question authority. Besides what better way to get people voting than political discussion, I know that I am planning to vote.
Hurin- There is nothing wrong with taxation, it is the reallocation of wealth that is a problem. Secondly you should volunteering in an emergency room for a couple months. You will see then the correllation.
Rob, part of the reason I am dubious of this correlation is that I cannot see any sort of causal relationship between the issuance of a welfare check, and the death of the person to whom this check was issued. It would be easier to see such problems arising in a situation such as rent being due at the beginning of the month, and people shooting themselves due to the destitution caused by loosing a home, or turning to violent crime in order to see that the payment gets in. I am also not sure what kind of deaths you are talking about, as a lot of different things can kill a person, and certain ones could be more plausably linked to welfare checks than others. Please let me know what kind of scenario you are implying.
I’m implying that the lower class blows their welfare checks on alcohol and drugs when they first recieve the money. This is easily seen in the emergency roon during the first few days of the month. My dad told me this, as he interned in the ER for several months.
I cannot agree with Bush’s proposal to send a manned mission to the moon again. It seems trivial and very unimportant to say the least. I figure he maybe trying to spur some space exploration, just like JFK did in the early sixties, but I don’t see short term gains coming from it. Another thing that really miffs me about Bush’s Space policy is the stranding of the Hubble telescope, a mission that has recently been the only redeeming feature of the american space program. Hopefully, he will replace it with a better space telescope, seeing how Hubble has been the best telescope ever built he is truly doing a disservice to humankind.
With that out of the way, I turn to the comments of Tweedle (Dum.) I still fail to see how people can relate the war in Iraq with the copious amounts of oil over there. So far there has been no decrease in the price of oil in the united states and no companies have been shoed into the Iraq oil fields. I admit that there will be sometime in the future when capitalist Oil companies will move into Iraq and set up shop in conquest of profit but I see this as an overwhelmingly positive influence on the the Iraqi people. Firstly, their economy will be supported by the oil that comes from the ground, seeing as how that is the only commodity that grows in the desert, through the addition of jobs and global interest into the region. The people who gain the most are the Iraqi’s not the republicans from Texas.
As for the war, I think you fail to see the correllation between Humans and war. Your family has served proudly and selflessly to defend your great nation/community as many billions of humans have done over the past several thousand years. I’m sure that to have a generation in your family that didn’t fight in a war would be almost alien. Humans and war go hand in hand. It is unfortunate but true. This cannot be argued. I would rather have the wars fought for the indepedence of the people of earth than to see the reach of a tyrannical Saddam (and his type) be extended across this great planet.
As far as a negative job growth for GWB, all I have to say is that he came in during the “dot-com” bubble burst. So many people got laid off that any growth that has moved to offset the balance is minute in comparison. If he is reelected people will see the biggest growth following a major economy bust since Roosevelt in in the thirties.
Might I add that I was pretty lit when I wrote about Roosevelt (we all those moments.) That graph was so random. I would like to also say that the selection of presidents in that graphs was pretty skewed. I would like to see a graph for every president in history.
It may be that the bush tax cuts will cause some momentary economic growth, however at the rate that bush is spending it wont take people long to realize that the economy is seriously out of whack. I am no economist, however I have noticed that usually when a president cuts taxes he also cuts spending, or if he is going to spend like there is no tomorrow he appoints the taxpayers to pay for his excess. Bush wants it both ways, he is prepaired to give all the money collected through tax away, and still spend with the most fiscally liberal of the democrats. to quote Kristoff of the times “I have seen this before: in Argentina”; point being that just because the U.S. is a rich and powerful country dosnt make it immune to a debt crisis. I have also recently learned that the IMF has warned the US that its current economic practices are a threat to the world economy. Yes, we will probably get some kind of spike from Bush’s economy; tweak something that much and drastic things are bound to happen, but like the economic crack cocain that it is it will last five minutes and leave us bottomed out. By the way Rob, welfare isnt prefect but Id like to see you come up with a better system for helping out the underprivelaged in our country. If you were powerless and jobless and sleeping in a gutter you would probably be on some pretty hard drugs yourself. Having volunteered for an organization that distributed food to homeless shelters and soup kitchens, I am familiar with the desperation (at least from an observers point of view) that is the life of many recipeints of welfare and other social programs. To suggest that eliminating programs such as this would help them, is to piss on those who have hardest in our nation.
I just learned that lightweights like me have expert support in our contradiction of the “economic benefit” of the bush tax cuts; today a collum in the opinion section of the New York times summarized the feelings of Alan Greenspan on such matters. Greenspan warned of the Long and short term dangers of the gigantic deficite, and related that his support of the tax cuts when first announced was contingent upon Bush’s ability to listen to his advice and make them temporary. To access the full text of the article go to this adress . So much for Roosevelt, Bush’s fiscal dealings look downright Hooverish to me.
Sorry I cannot paste the address so here is the article which i will render under the protection of the fair use doctrine.
Alan Greenspan has cleared up any questions about whether a half-trillion-dollar deficit is a danger to the American economy, and whether the huge Bush tax cuts are part of the problem. Testifying before Congress yesterday in that polite, jargon-riddled way of his, the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board contradicted the Bush administration and its allies, who have been dismissing the significance of deficits. Mr. Greenspan also complained about “diminished restraint” on discretionary spending — perhaps an indication that he has lost some faith in the conservative credo that cutting revenue is the best way to control spending.
Mr. Greenspan’s warning that the “outsized federal demands on national saving” will appreciably raise long-term interest rates is the stuff of Econ 101 orthodoxy: if the government gobbles up too much credit, it drives up the cost of capital for the rest of us. But apologists for the Bush administration’s reckless fiscal policies like to write off such thinking.
Mr. Greenspan’s overall outlook on the economy is quite bullish, but the most striking thing about his testimony was that he did not confine his warnings about federal deficits to the long term. He said they threatened his short-term rosy scenario.
Listening to Mr. Greenspan testify is more interesting in the context of what we now know about the early Bush administration. According to a recent account by the former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, Mr. Greenspan backed the tax cuts because of a mistaken belief that he and Mr. O’Neill would be powerful enough to convince the White House and Congress that the reductions should be temporary. The notion was to include a trigger mechanism that would revoke the cuts in the event of budgetary conditions like the ones the nation is now facing. We know now, and presumably Mr. Greenspan understands as well, that this is an administration whose commitment to cutting taxes for the wealthy is not subject to any respect for sound financial management.
Given the relatively meager slice of federal spending that can be substantially cut and the alarmingly meager federal receipts, as a percentage of the economy, there is only one responsible way for Congress to heed Mr. Greenspan’s warnings about those spiraling deficits. Instead of debating whether some of the Bush tax cuts should be extended, it’s time to consider rolling some of them back.
THe name of that article is “Mr Greenspan weighs in” and it appears in the feb. 12 issue of the opinion section of the Online New York times
Sorry folks, the birth of my daughter caused me to lose track of this thread briefly.
Rob, my orignal statement on “redistribution of wealth” was based on my recolection of my High School econ class… That was more than a few years ago, but I thought that the term “wealth” was the generic term for monies generated by an economic system, not a term of “someone else’s cash.” “Redistribution of wealth” then, was the idea that a country has expenses, which must be paid for by the population, and if the country has no national resources to sell and generate its own wealth, then the people must provide for the services they use. Our country has chosen to privatize the natural resources, and tax the products that those private industries provide. As there are more products and wealth to tax, there should be more income for the country to continue to do with as it needs to to support the welfare of it’s people.
That definately means that the wealthy end up paying for the burdens of those who can not pay for themselves. It’s proven time and time again in the private sector. My health care premiums are astronomical, but is that fair? Prior to the birth of my child, I’ve been to the doctor once in the last 3 years. I should be able to pay for my one visit, not averaging out the cost of everyone covered by the insurance plan, and charging everyone equally. OTOH, I’m sure as hell glad I don’t have to pay the costs of childbirth out of pocket. This year, the insurance company is going to have to get recompensated by someone else, as I’m using my full allotment plus some.
That’s how redistribution of wealth works. The fact that some may fraudulently abuse the system is a statistical drop in the bucket (compared to the number of poeple that really need help) that is compensated for by the system. A correctly designed system should be able to take that into account.
My point was (as Hurin has pointed directly to) that nobody in their right mind thinks that tax cuts coupled with extensive spending increases are going to fix the economy. Look back to Bush Sr’s “No New Taxes” speech and later reversal. Tax cutting only works if you stop spending as well. Neither Bush seems to grasp that statement, as far as I can tell.
I am further outraged by the Bush Administration because while the war in Iraq was misguided by bad interpretation of evidence, I also believe that as a country that supports court systems, rule of law, and evidence of guilt before judgment for ourselves, GWB (and most Republicans I’ve met) does not give any quarter to a foreign sovreign nation.
The US is well on its way to becoming the next United Kingdom—a washed-up, former imperial power that is the lapdog of the next powerhouse. As soon as China’s (or whomever’s) economy kicks it into high gear, rather than having the support of the rest of the world, the weight of our economic folies, and lack of respect for the UN-WTO-IMF, (and other leading world bodies) are going to crush the US into fiscal and social dependency that is unbearable to our collective egos.
Clinton may not have been the best person or President, but at least we were working towards sharing the burden of saving the planet with the rest of the world, and there was some respect for the inteligence an capabilities of foreign nationals.
Yeah, I second that, third that one, and fourth and fith that one and this one… NOW GO OUT AND REGISTER AS A DEMOCRAT AND VOTE FOR JOHN KERRY! Life is not going to be easy, it never is, but anyone, ANYONE is better that this fool. The Bush crew is killing this nation, its tragic! No more, vote his sorry ass out of office, please!
In macroeconomic analysis, yes, wealth would be considered the overall sum of products and services produced and consumed. In this context, however, that is not whats wrong with your argument. Your anology to the insurance company is a bad one. First thats a privatized elective service, which, in comparison to a public good is totally different. You can choose not to have it and go with out it. Other people may see the benefit in having insurance and purchase some. With a public good, everypays and everyone can recieve with no discrimination. Now, where you’re dead wrong is this: just becuase someone has more money than you doesn’t mean that they have to pay for the insurance that they get. Everyone pays the same for like coverages. Everyone benefits from it when people are injuried.
You argue for an ablility-to-pay tax, so that means you have target the wealthiest people in the country to pay for something you want to provide. Thats not okay. Just becuase someone has a lot of money does not mean that its alright to say that they shouldn’t have their money and that someone else should. Through, the government you are stealing. Now you may say that you also pay welfare taxes and this correct, but proportionately nothing near what wealthy people pay. So they bear the cost of the tax and they don’t even benefit like you do in seeing the lower class be supported (who likes to see their money go into the hands of drugg addicts and people who have made poor decisions in life?) This too is an economic contradiction. People who don’t have to work to get by, and are satisfied with just getting by, will not work to improve their status. Welfare is a great social idea but in life it does not work well.
In macroeconomic analysis, yes, wealth would be considered the overall sum of products and services produced and consumed. In this context, however, that is not whats wrong with your argument. Your anology to the insurance company is a bad one. First thats a privatized elective service, which, in comparison to a public good is totally different. You can choose not to have it and go with out it. Other people may see the benefit in having insurance and purchase some. With a public good, everypays and everyone can recieve with no discrimination. Now, where you’re dead wrong is this: just becuase someone has more money than you doesn’t mean that they have to pay for the insurance that they get. Everyone pays the same for like coverages. Everyone benefits from it when people are injuried.
You argue for an ablility-to-pay tax, so that means you have target the wealthiest people in the country to pay for something you want to provide. Thats not okay. Just becuase someone has a lot of money does not mean that its alright to say that they shouldn’t have their money and that someone else should. Through, the government you are stealing. Now you may say that you also pay welfare taxes and this correct, but proportionately nothing near what wealthy people pay. So they bear the cost of the tax and they don’t even benefit like you do in seeing the lower class be supported (who likes to see their money go into the hands of drugg addicts and people who have made poor decisions in life?) This too is an economic contradiction. People who don’t have to work to get by, and are satisfied with just getting by, will not work to improve their status. Welfare is a great social idea but in life it does not work well.
Rob, you paint the poor of this nation with to broad a brush. there are many disadvantaged people in this nation who are born into families too poor to put them through college , and generally unable to turn the situations that suround their lifes around. Conversely, what has George W Bush ever done to earn the weath that he has to fall back on? If you said absolutely fucking nothing that would be correct. The bush fortune is based on two things, Oil, and illicit trading with Nazi germany which Prescott Bush engaged in during WWII. Still convinced that the afluence one gains in life is directly tied to thier choices? In spite of all the other economic stipulations resulting from bushes half baked economic plans your only retort is based on this faulty picture of the lazy vagrant drug addicted poor, stealing from the hard working and deserving rich. It all boils down to self interest, on your part and on the part of bush, but let me ask you this, what millionare\billionare has ever had to lower thier standard of living even to that of the average american because of federal income tax? I really doesnt happen. Furthermore welfare is not nearly as well funded as other programs such as the millitary, dept of homeland security, etc. Do you also beleive that those programs should be cut so that the wealthy can hoard thier money? Do you beleive that the middle class would be better off dealing with these tax burdens? Finally I wanted to portray my disgust with someone who repeatedly spits on the poor for being lazy and using drugs, yet admits to getting “lit” and apparently (if my understanding is correct) grew up in the privelaged household of a doctor. I can say I share both of these latter traits, however I feel that my social privalage should be used to help others of a lower standing, and I dont spit on those who use drugs, given that I myself have engaged in such activities.
Rob,
When I read the last response (as I am in the habit of doing when surfing these types of websites), posted on February 14th 2004 by Hurin, I expected someone of Hurin’s caliber as an opponent. How wrong was I? Your incoherent article underlines your ignorance of society. You are not a good representation of rich people (I know you’re rich because only rich people think the way you do!) For example, your article said:
“who likes to see their money go into the hands of drugg addicts and people who have made poor decisions in life?”
Well this is charming isn’t it? I’ll address this issue as briefly as I can. Did it ever occur to you that some people are born into poverty and have no choice in life? Did it ever occur to you that the neighborhoods in which poor people live provide no basic forms of education, welfare, training, leisure, etc (at least nothing similar to what you have experienced)? Did it ever occur to you that some people live differently from you and hence don’t think the same way as you? Did it ever occur to you that not all poor people do drugs? Did it ever occur to you that not all poor people make the wrong decisions? And thus, did it ever occur to you that some people are poor because they want to (i.e. some people choose a low paid salary because they like what they do and cannot afford the same commodities as yourself)? Consequently, did it ever occur to you that not everyone is an opportunist like you and most rich people? Did it ever occur to you that most poor people haven’t been raised in a comfortable, loving environment like yourself? Did it ever occur to you that poor people haven’t got the same options as you and can’t achieve the same social status as you?
You seem to have no idea of how the world works. Away from your relaxed lifestyle there are people who live harder more difficult lives than you. I do not doubt, for one second, that if you were placed in that same situation you would break down. And by the way, these poor druggies are the people that pick up your trash, clean your streets, maintain public buildings not to mention businesses. Without them society would collapse, just remember that. What would happen if the trash men went on strike, hey? (And don’t say the army would do it!)
Hurin,
It is a pleasure to read your article and reassuring to know someone likeminded on asite like this. This site isn’t anything like the other mindless hate sites I have come across; I may become a regular visitor…
Bill-
Thanks for the stereotype, man you can sure call a rich uneducated person out, because they are the only ones who think like I do. (this shows the exposure you as a grown man have to the world… touché)
My sense of the globe is fine and what makes it such is the reason that I do this. I’m here writing this stuff because I feel that I need to argue to, firstly, work on my writing and secondly to truly become aware politically. I’m here because I want to learn. I’m not here to randomly join in and try to support someone. There you go Bill. That’s all I have to say to you.
I was thinking about society the other day while I was tripping acid and playing with spider monkeys on the beaches of Saint Barths (because I have all money ever created) I came to the conclusion that not all poor people use drugs and that they may in fact be in underprivileged circumstances. Still, I had to conclude that a welfare system based on charity was one doomed to failure, simply by economic analysis.
Rob
I couldn’t help reading your last article and I thought I’d give you some help. Not because I am trying to discredit your work (in fact, I agree with most of what you said), but because you said you were trying to improve you’re writing, and I thought I would help. Though I’m no Shakespeare myself, I do know a bit about spelling, punctuation and grammar. You said:
“Thanks for the stereotype, man you can sure call a rich uneducated person out, because they are the only ones who think like I do. (this shows the exposure you as a grown man have to the world… touché)”
You could have said
Thanks for the stereotype man; you can sure call a rich, uneducated person out because they are the only ones that think like I do. (This shows the exposure, you, as a grown man, have to the world… touché).
Yes thank you. I’m extremely afraid of comma splices so don’t use commas like they should be used. Thank you
Rob
Well, it seems that I stand justified on the first paragraph. I am sorry for being stereotypical and acknowledge that I was a bit aggressive in my response, again, sorry.
The second paragraph was a bit unclear but I think I realize what you are trying to say. I am here for the same reason, that is, I am here to learn too (you see I am not a man, but someone still in full time education). Nonetheless, that shouldn’t make my opinion of the world any less credible. In the paragraph you said,
“I’m not here to randomly join in and try to support someone”
Here, I could go through your entire article and pick holes in it, down to every word (as you probably could do with mine), but I’m not. This one sentence annoys me insofar as you are implying you only listen to people you have previously spoken to. I recognize I was a bit harsh with my first article and that may consequently lead you to ignoring me in the future but that does not make my opinion any less probable.
I know your response was not a reply insofar as it was more a general criticism of my opinions (and it included no direct criticisms of my article) but I would like to address the last issue you mentioned in the third paragraph. Call it a matter of principles, if you may. You said,
“I had to conclude that a welfare system based on charity was one doomed to failure, simply by economic analysis.”
Well how do you suppose we, the people who are not living in terminal poverty, tell the people who are that we can no longer feed/support them? Maybe I misread your article but if you’re saying what I think you’re saying than that is a very spiteful remark. I can understand that people shouldn’t have the ‘luxury’ of a free living, but, how then, do you suppose the people who depend on ‘charity’ carry on living?
Surely, it is the society that has driven them to poverty (“one mans riches is another mans rags” serves as a nice case in point). Your suggestion may work as a guarantee that people would feel obliged to work (and if they didn’t they would gain no free handouts) but it falls short when considering the people who are confined to poverty today. These people, Rob, cannot get employed. Would you disregard them just because they have the misfortune of being born into a poor family with no great prospects ahead of them in life?
My point being: You, just like me, could be born into a poor neighborhood. Can’t you see that this would drastically affect you life chances? Presuming you have inherited your wealth, is it not your duty, and others like you, to help people in less well-off backgrounds? Walt Disney was born extremely poor; he did not make the ‘poor decisions’ in life. What I’m saying is just because one person is poor that does not make them any worse a person than you. (Even more so if you have inherited your wealth.)
Keep up the writing and you’ll get there. I respectfully await your response, not that I expect one!
Rob, you say that you critique of welfare is based on the economics of the situation, however I can see only a minimal basis for this assesment. It is true that welfare is not the most efficient program, and that it is prone to fraudulent claims, however I fail to see how this condemns it as a whole. Welfare is in a continual state of reform, and with the right set of changes it may well become more efficient. The fact however is and remains that not only has the program been relatively small in the scope of past government spending, but recently George W. Bush has slashed social spending even further in order to curb deficites, and to minimal gain. The deficite is still projected to be over $500 Billion, and the fault of this lies on the tax cuts which drastically lower the government intake, while spending for more beefy programs, such as defense remains largely the same. Among the really greivios issues here is also what defense spending has been recently allocated to: in the face of the unconventional terrorist threat, president bush has chosen to allocate large amounts of the defense budget to buying such weapons as new bombers tanks and other conventional weapons useful for a conventional war, but useless against small groups of terrorists. He has also proposed a regan style missle defense which is still unfeasable with current technology. This kind of mis-allocation of funds is what needs to go, not welfare.
Off the topic, one way you could improve the strength of your points, would be to resist the temptation to include statements that distract from the points you wish to make with your response. Here is an example of what I am talking about:
“I was thinking about society the other day while I was tripping acid and playing with spider monkeys on the beaches of Saint Barths (because I have all money ever created) I came to the conclusion that not all poor people use drugs and that they may in fact be in underprivileged circumstances.”
when I read this passage I was so confused by your references to tripping and playing with monkeys that the point I think you meant to emphasise, about realizing that poor people may be the product of thier circumstances, was fundamentally comprimised. Rather than that point sticking in my mind I was contemplating whether you were serious about the monkeys, or what you might have meant by that part of the statement. Also bear in mind that such statements can undermine your credibility as they make you appear less serious.
P.S. Bill, thank you for your flattering assesment of my response, I look forward to seeing more commentary from you should you choose to return.
Bill-
Your chatisement spurned a new wave of thinking within me. I realized just how spiteful I sounded. I want to apologize for saying what i have said about poor people, for they don’t all use drugs and abuse the welfare system. Though I still feel strongly about welfare reform I know that welfare is in fact a good thing.
The line about tripping acid and playing with spider monkeys is a direct quote of hansel from Zoolander (right before the walkoff). It was meant to confuse, and well entertain if you were in on the joke.
Alright back to work.
ah, that makes much more sense; I thought you were saying it in earnest and it totally threw me.
All politics aside, I think GW Bush is just pure evil and that his family raised him that way. Any man that sends our men and women off to die in a war that never should have taken place has to be an evil man. The Italian military intel that found the false documents about nukes in Iraq disproved them in a matter of minutes. How could our government claim not to have known that they were false documents? If you believe the NSA didn’t know they were false documents, you’re certifiable. Oh, and just a note there are documents in the Italian government’s hands stateing that the nuke documents were proven false by a Google.com search. It’s disgusting what you’re being led to believe America and you eat it up!
PS Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. If you don’t know this by now you’re really brainwashed.
I just want to say, the thing that pisses me off most, Military families are barely given enough pay to survive. Now the administration is talking about takeing away vital overtime pay? If you support GW Bush it’s obvious you don’t give a sh-t about our men and women in uniform. The current administration has done nothing but make the life of our Vets more difficult. Want to call yourselves Patriots, stop supporting the sick campaign Bush has against our military! He’ll gladly sacrifice our friends and family but he won’t spend any money to keep VA Hospitals open, secure overtime pay for soldiers or give families who have lost loved ones the restitution worthy of their sacrifice. It’s really disgusting. And you should be as pissed off as the military families are! At some point military families aren’t going to stand for the crap they’ve had to deal with for over thirty years plus! I’m not sure what it’s going to take but I’m sure they’re going to get pissed off enough to do something about the straights they are in. GW Bush is a purely evil man and I’m going to stand by that, no matter what you have to say. Oh, and to you folks that believe this bullshine, if America were in Iraq for humanitarian reasons America would have been in China, Africa, Cuba and a host of other countries before we ever went to Iraq. Always remember, those chemical weapons Saddam used on the Curds were the ones the US gave him. WAKE UP America and stop happily eating the sh-t you’re being fed!
Rob-
First of all, thank you for your response; I cannot say I expected it. (Again, this website, and the people who visit it, surprises me!)
Secondly, the line about tripping acid and playing with spider monkeys entertained me even though I didn’t have the slightest idea what you were saying! In fact, when you mentioned ‘acid’ and ‘spider monkeys’, I was considering if you were referring to psychedelic drugs, and was in the process of rebutting the statement “I was tripping acid” because over here, in Britain, we call it “tripping on acid”. But of course, I stopped myself short, remembering different countries have different terminology relating to things of that sort!
Moving on, it’s great that you have managed to start thinking in a different way. If you still feel strongly about issues such as welfare, then research into arguments that support your theory. It is also helpful to research into arguments that oppose your theory; you can then readily point out the fallacies of differing arguments, if any! Find a subject that you have great interest in, and instead of regarding researching as chore; you will find learning invigorating and interesting.
It is recommended when learning, to be as open minded as possible (this sounds easy but in practice I find it very, very hard). If you want a general knowledge, find books that you can easily read, and not just ones that you are personally interested in, read the daily newspapers and intellectual magazines. That is the path to general knowledge. If you want a more specific knowledge, the same resources apply but I find the Internet more interesting and practical.
You mentioned wanting to become politically aware, I recommend an Australian journalist, John Pilger. He is my main source on ‘political’ issues and a writer/director that comes highly recommended; please read some of his articles/books. He has directed documentaries and written thousands of articles on the state of the world today. He is impartial and (I believe) the best journalist in the world. He bases all his beliefs on evidence. Not like most novelists, Pilger uses sources (and if you are going to read one of his books, you will see no less than three footnotes on every page!). I am in the process of checking out all the sources of his most recent book “The New Rulers of the World”. So far they all check out! I STRONGLY RECOMMEND THIS BOOK. Anyone else who happens to be reading this, make an effort to read his work.
Hurin-
It’s a pleasure and I shall return. I think you shall enjoy the next article if you haven’t read it already.
K-
I cannot say that I disagree with most of what you said. I hate GW Bush, that’s why I’m on a website entitled “Why I hate George Bush”.
I know that weapons have been sold to Saddam by America. I also know the CIA funded the Taliban. I also know that 50,000 conscript Iraqi soldiers were carbonized when marching home AFTER the end of the first Gulf War. Hell, I even know that 567,000 innocent children were killed as a direct result of the sanctions put in place by the British and American government from the end of the first Gulf war to march 2003 in Iraq. If you refuse to believe this, (as a lot of people are in the habit of doing) type in “UNICEF (that stands for: United Nations Children’s Fund), sanctions, Iraqi children” into a search engine and you should find the information you are looking for. If that’s not enough to swat you, you shouldn’t trust anyone, because UNICEF is an organization funded and approved by the U.S. and the U.K. (To make it more clear than it needs to be, these are the same governments that emplaced the sanctions)
Back to Bush’s, I also know that while GW Bush is preaching freedom and ‘trying’ to generate a culture of liberty, he is disallowing prisoner’s fundamental human rights. Guantanamo Bay is even in breach of the Magna Carter, not to mention article 6 of America’s constitution. Here, I could write all day long about the way the Bush family illegally made money through oil, the real reason why Bush senior attacked Somalia (made into a film called “Black Hawk Down”) and a hell of a lot of other things but I can’t be bothered! You come across as a like-minded individual so you’ll probably agree with me anyway.
However, one thing I am not K, is a patriot. You may call me a ‘weenie’ but I am in no position to support my country, or any other, when they behave in the way in which they do. I believe you’re right when you say the government mistreats its soldiers. That’s why half of all homeless people in Britain are said to be homeless! But Bush, just like Hitler, has to respect his army. You see, without them, he is nothing. But saying this, out of all the stupid things GW Bush has done, I don’t think he will accomplish that one! I think it’s a shame really!
Just in case you, and everyone else, think I have gone mad (with rantings of children’s deaths and homeless people), I will be posting some history on Iraq later just to prove all my wild accusations!
Just as I promised, here is an article written by a former U.S. attorney General. Ramsey Clark. It illustrates the history of Iraq from the start of the 20th century. Please read this with an open mind as most people who do read this refuse to believe it. The fact of the matter is, this is fact, if it wasn’t, Ramsey Clark would be jailed for treason and up to his eyeballs in lawsuits! Iraq has been a target of U.S. covert actions since at least 1958, when a popular revolution led by Abdel Kassem overthrew the Iraqi monarchy, which was installed by Britain in 1921. In 1960, the new government helped found the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, to resist Western oil monopolies.1 The CIA plotted Kassem’s assassination and U.S. generals in Turkey devised a military plan, called “Canonbone,” to invade northern Iraq and seize its oil fields.2 In 1963, Kassem and thousands of supporters were massacred in a CIA-backed coup. In 1968, the Baathist Party came to power. In 1972, it nationalized the U.S./U.K.-owned Iraqi Petroleum Company under the slogan “Arab oil for the Arabs.” After a meeting with President Nixon, National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger and the shah of Iran, the CIA urged Kurdish leaders in northern Iraq to rebel against the Iraqi government. The U.S. promised to back them all the way. The House Select Committee on Intelligence Pike Report described it as a “cynical enterprise, even in the context of clandestine operations.”3 The Shah funnelled U.S.-supplied arms to the Kurds.4 The Pike Report stated that neither the Shah “nor the President and Kissinger desired victory for [the Kurds]. They hoped the insurgents would [maintain] a level of hostilities to sap the resources of [Iraq].”5 In 1975, Iraq agreed to share the Shatt-al-Arab waterway with Iran. Support for the Kurds was terminated. The fate of Kurds left behind did not concern the U.S. As Kissinger said “Covert operations should not be confused with missionary work.”6 In 1979, the Iranian people to overthrew the shah’s despotic regime. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski then publicly encouraged Iraq to attack Iran and take back the Shatt-al-Arab waterway.7 In 1980, the U.S. provided Iraq with intelligence reports that Iran would quickly collapse in the face of an Iraqi advance. At the urging of U.S.-backed Arab rulers in Kuwait, Egypt and elsewhere, Saddam Hussein unleashed a war with Iran in which hundreds of thousands died.8 The attack served U.S. interests by weakening Iran, where U.S. embassy personnel were still kept hostage. The U.S. did not want either side to win. “We wanted to avoid victory by both sides,” a Reagan official told the New York Times.9 Kissinger was more blunt: “I hope they kill each other” and “too bad they both can’t lose.”10 Iraq could not have sustained the eight year war without massive assistance, direct and indirect, from the U.S.S.R., Eastern bloc countries, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia, the U.S., U.K., France, and West Germany. The Pentagon and CIA provided Iraq with satellite and AWACS intelligence on Iranian forces.11 The U.S. sent CIA and Special Forces to train Iraqi commandos and the U.S. helped funnel billions of dollars worth of arms to Iraq.12 Egypt, a major recipient of U.S. military aid, sent troops, tanks and heavy artillery to Iraq.13 In 1980, the military dictatorship in Turkey - a major recipient of U.S. military aid - sent troops to fight rebels in Iraqi Kurdistan, freeing Iraq’s army to concentrate on fighting Iran. The U.S.-supported regimes in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia also supported Iraq’s war effort. Kuwait’s contributed over $30 billion. The U.S. sold over $20 billion worth of arms to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states during this period and allowed Saudi Arabia to transfer large quantities of U.S. arms to Iraq during the war. In 1984, the U.S. became Iraq’s principal trading partner by increasing its purchases of Iraqi oil while encouraging Europe and Japan to do likewise.14 The Reagan administration increased intelligence-sharing with Iraq. Vice President Bush, the State Department and the CIA lobbied for large-scale financing of U.S. exports to Iraq.15 In 1986, the U.S. sent a CIA team to advise the Iraqi military.16 But the U.S. was supporting both sides. In 1983, U.S. and Turkish generals were preparing to re-implement the 1958 “Cannonbone” plan.17 Until 1986, the U.S. funnelled arms to Iran through Oliver North, Israel and Pakistan.18 In 1985, Oliver North told Iranian officials that the U.S. would try to engineer the overthrow of Hussein.19 In 1987, the U.S. became directly involved in the war on Iraq’s side by protecting the passage of Kuwaiti tankers with a major military presence in the Persian Gulf. Some U.S.-escorted, Kuwait tankers carried Iraqi oil while Iraqi planes attacked Iranian tankers. The U.S. sank Iranian patrol ships and destroyed their oil platforms. In 1987, Army General Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr. became commander of the U.S. Central Command. He had a unique background for the assignment.20 In the 1953, his father assisted in the CIA’s coup in Iran. When the Iran-Iraq War ended in 1988, U.S. war contingency plans made Iraq the enemy.21 In January 1990, CIA Director William Webster testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee on growing Western dependency on Middle East oil.22 In February, Schwarzkopf told the committee that the U.S. should increase its military presence in the region and described new intervention plans.23 In 1990, the U.S. conducted at least four war games directed at Iraq, some premised on an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The U.S. wanted a new war in the Middle East: the Pentagon, to maintain its tremendous budget; arms industries, to feed their Middle East and U.S. military contracts; oil companies, for increased profits; and the Bush administration, which saw the USSR’s disintegration as a chance to establish a permanent military presence in the Middle East to control of its oil resources. The challenge was to force Iraq, a country more interested in rebuilding than expansion, to take action that would justify U.S. military intervention. To create this crisis, the U.S. invoked its special relationship with the Kuwait. In his book Hidden Agenda Behind the Gulf War, Pierre Salinger observed that Kuwait drastically increase oil production one day after the Iran-Iraq ceasefire. During the Iran-Iraq war, Kuwait seized 900 square miles of Iraq’s Rumaila oil field. Using U.S. drilling technology, Kuwait was also stealing oil that was indisputably inside Iraq. When Iraqi troops amassed on the border, Hussein summoned U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie to his office to clarify the U.S. position. Glaspie assured him: “We have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. [Secretary of State] James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction.”24
Footnotes: 1. Middle East Economic Survey, May 12, 1961. 2. New Statesman, July 15, 1983. 3. Gerard Chaliand and Ismet Seriff Vanly, People Without A Country, 1980, 184. 4. Will Safire, New York Times, Feb.12, 1976. 5. See Chaliand and Vanly. 6. See Chaliand and Vanly 7. Christopher Hitchens, Harper’s Magazine, Jan.1991, 70. 8. Dilip Hiro, The Longest War, 1991. 9. S. Hersh, New York Times, Jan.26, 1992, 1. 10. Shahram Chubinl and Charles Trip, Iran and Iraq at War, 1988, 207. 11. The Christic Institute, “Covert Operations, the Persian Gulf War and the New World Order.” 12. The Economist, May 6, 1982. 13. Francis Boyle, “International Crisis and Neutrality: U.S. Foreign Policy Toward the Iraq-Iran War,” in Neutrality: Changing Concepts and Practices, 1986. 14. Leslie Gelb, “Bush’s Iraqi Blunder,” New York Times, May 4, 1992 15. “‘Nightline’ on the Bush-Iraq Connection,” in Israel and Palestine Political Report, June 1991, 5. 16. Toward 2000, Mar.16, 1991. 17. Far Eastern Economic Review, Dec.19, 1991. 18. Report of the Congressional Committees Investigating the Iran-Contra Affair, Appendix A: vol. 1, Tape 12, 1500. 19. Fred Halliday, Arabia Without Sultans: A Political Survey of Instability in the Arab World, 1975. 20. Kermit Roosevelt, Countercoup: The Struggle for Control of Iran, 1979. 21. William Webster, Senate Cttee. on Armed Services, Jan.23, 1990, 60. 22. Norman Schwarzkopf, Senate Cttee. on Armed Services, Feb.8, 1990, 577-579. 23. U.S. Army, “A Strategic Force for the 1990s and Beyond,” Jan.1990, 1-17. 24. Stewart M. Powell, San Fransisco Examiner, Sept. 24, 1990, A12.
Uh yeah, looks like the “overwhelming body of evidence” against invading Iraq that I talked about in the Iraq debate has just surfaced. Wow I had heard a great deal of those things from various sources but the sheer ugliness of the facts when all stated together is kind of mindblowing. What I want to know is why none of this history is never mentioned when it is inconvenient for the Bush administration. It seems like these people are thriving on the ignorance of a huge chunk of america.
George W. Bush is nothing but an overgrown frat boy who got lucky. Let’s hope to God that this time the voting system won’t fail us miserably. I still cannot believe that he got away with going AWOL.
George W. Bush was never lucky. The only luck he had was his daddy and his daddy’s oil buddies who were happy to do Bush Sr. favors as long as Bush Jr. was their puppet. Bush Sr. has always been around to pull all the strings for Bush Jr. That’s the only way he managed to get into the White House. People thought Clinton was a corrupt, unprincipled, slimely politician, but I’m afraid the Bushes have that market covered.
Arg! My hand twitched and I accidently double-posted! Damn my sleep-deprived motor skills! Feel free to delete and make look less stupid
Hurin- Thankyou for the response, it’s a shame i haven’t heard from Rob too. I’m in the process of writing an article in response to what you said. It will probably arrive in the next few days.
Hurin-
I had a spare 5 minutes and I thought I might tell you another fact to further substantiate my Iraqi children claim. You’re gona love this, the U.S. Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, was asked if the price of 500,000 dead Iraqi children was worth it for the maintaining of economic sanctions. She replied, and I quote,
“we think the price is worth it”
It may not come as a surprise that she no longer has her job. But seriously, this is an illustration of the sheer ignorance of politicians today. I recently found out she has won an award for her ‘tenacity’ in her career.
Type in Madeline Albright, sanctions, comments, Iraqi children to any search engine
The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to the editor. Please forward to all on your list as this will put things in perspective:
“Liberal Democrats claim President Bush shouldn’t have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history.
Let’s clear up one point: We didn’t start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists on 9/11.
Let’s look at the “worst” president and mismanagement claims
FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.
Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.
John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.
Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden’s head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.
Worst president in history? Come on!” LET’S NOT FORGET THAT EVER ONE SUPPORTED THIS WAR BECAUSE OF 9-11.
Edward (and anyone else who might have seen the letter that Edward posted):
I strongly suggest you visit Making Light: Disinformation, where a number of people are in the process of taking apart that letter and exposing it for the well-written piece of misleading propaganda that it is.
Some samples:
There’s a lot more there in the thread I linked to. End result, this letter purporting to “clear things up” is just one more piece of slickly produced propaganda.
Edward,
Ditto to what Woody said above. And in addition to that, there is one minor piece of clarification I would like to add: The war in Iraq was not in response to 9/11. It was in response to Bush’s misguided belief that Saddam was producing the much touted WMDs (weapons of mass destruction). There is no doubt that Saddam was a terrible dictator that sucked the life out of his people, the wealth out of his country and ordered human rights atrocities. The sanctions that were imposed upon Iraq for over a decade didn’t help either. But in the end, were we, as a nation, justified in invading Iraq? Well, Bush told the people of the United States that it was suspected that Saddam and his gov’t were hiding WMD’s and nearly a year after the U.S. invasion there are still NO WMD’s to be found. Bush, due to public pressure I imagine, has even admitted that he must’ve been wrong.
The real deal with this whole war thing is not about the imaginary WMD’s - it’s about securing the U.S.’s interests in Mid-East oil. It also helps that the Bush family has close ties to the Saudi royal family AND to Osama Bin Laden’s family living in Saudi Arabia. The only interest W. has is his own. What makes him the worst president is that he has put his own interests before the country he is supposed to be leading. And he hasn’t even done a very good job at hiding his connections and failings because he knows he’s got the power through his father and political ties.
All this information is actually rather easy to find if you’ve got some time on your hands. Don’t swallow what the media and the Whitehouse tries to spoonfeed the public. The information is all there in public record just waiting to be put together like a great puzzle. Do a little digging and you’ll find a goldmine.
I hate “president” George W. Bush. He literally stole the election.(People with names that SOUNDED like felons were not aloud to vote.Unless, of course, you had the money to fix it) I am 12 years old, but even I can plainly see that Bush is a lying hypocrit. He invaded Iraq, claiming that they were a threat to the US.It really scares me to think about a country on the other side of the world in the middle of the desert that does not have any nuclear weapons. He claims that it was still the right thing to do, because Iraq was lead by Saddam, a cruel leader.I cannot argue this, but if he is going to “liberate” Iraq, then why doesn’t he liberate countries all over the world that need our help. Especially countries like Liberia or Haiti, nations that we, The US, set up. Bush has passed a countless number of bills that astonish me. Cutting funding of programs like UNICEF, giving tax cuts to rich people, not to those who need it most, and many, many more. He violated the U.N., and is basically well on his way to the demise of our country.If he is re-elected in 2004,things will get much worse. But what astounds me the most is that no one seems to care. The ignorance of Americans is amazing.You would think that Americans would look and see what was happening to thier own country, and try to look past what the goverment tells them but they don’t. Please, in the elections, don’t vote for Bush. I don’t care if Carey, Dean, or Edwards is elected, ANYBODY BUT BUSH!
Everyone here get a custom t-shirt that says ” Behold the sum of all our fears, Bush may be back for four more years”, and have a picture of bush under those words. I have one.
I think hatred is something that must be cautiously distributed. But I hate Bush. He is not my president. He was not elected by the public. He was elected by Scalia, Kennedy, Rehnquist and, most distressingly, O’Connor and Thomas. A woman and an African-American elected this stupid good ‘ole boy who cannot even spell his own name or score in the top 50% on the SAT. The highest office in this pathetic excuse for a democracy is occupied by someone dumber than more than half of the people who took the freakin’ SAT. I am so sickened to be an American under his watch that I have honestly considered moving to Europe. Maybe France. Maybe some place that does not think that you have to be a militant hawk in order to be a patriot. Excuse me, but I have to go throw up now.
Twas the night before christmas
and all through the land
Florida was still counting there ballets by hand…….AGAIN!
Some were going for Bush
some were going for Gore
The supreme court was baffled
Ohh what a bore
While Nadar was still tring to get 5%
So the green party would be funded
and he could represent
Clinton was celebrating
thats all that we know
5 extra weeks in office
ho ho ho ho!!!
Then down in Tallahase
there arrose such a clatter
they stoped the hand counting
to see what was the matter
The supreme court declared
they would postpone the fight,
they would settle it all on monday night
But allas!
the supreme court did not keep their word
they settled it on tuesday
how absurd
The supreme courts vote
was 5 to 4
to elect cheating Bush
and ditch honest Al Gore
So Bush has won
and Gore had lost
but before Al Gore went off the wire
He said “Ill be back” as the election expired
I think possibly the most disturbing thing about this administration is something you just said, that an unquestioning worship of the administration is now “Patriotism.” Fuck that . A real patriot is one who will question the workings of the government, and strive for its improvement. Indifference is the real anti-patriotism. People who do not involve themselves in politics are the real anti -patriots. I also beleive that blind faith in a government that espouses “Christian” views to push an agenda that goes squarely against anything ever taught by Jesus is the ultimate Anti-Christianity. The Bush Administration’s “Christianity” is the Christianity of hate and intolerance and it should be a horrible travisty to anyone who takes thier faith seriously. Even those who have different systems of beleif should feel the extremity of this contradiction. Many people are quick to point this same contradiction in one Osama bin Laden, a muslim who delights in perverting his own faith. This is why I have an extremely visceral reaction to the fact that some of bush’s biggest supporters are right wing Christians. Because Bush is the Osama bin Laden of Washington DC, and instead of al-Queda we have the “moral majority.”
Hurin-
A response to your last article: Yes, you are correct, which is why it’s important our civil rights are kept intact and our media is not censored. Funnily enough though, America has implemented the notorious ‘patriot’ act, and Britain the ‘anti-terrorist’ laws, at a time when we need our rights most. Apparently, the FBI can walk into any library at any time and demand to see what people are reading! University staff are also advised to tell government officials if they think a person is showing ‘dissenting’ views! All this, at a time when Western countries should be making a good representation for the rest of the world to follow. Unfortunately, countries stricken with terror are not going to look towards the West if they want a desirable social system.
Ah well, moving swiftly on. You wanted to know why certain issues are never raised when appropriate. This is a very difficult question, but one I think I may have the answer to. The answer can be split into two sections.
-1) why do newspapers ignore certain stories/issues? -2) who can benefit from telling the ‘general public’ lies?
Answering the first section requires an overview of the corporations that produce newspapers and magazines.
A good example of censorship in the newspapers is the 5000 deaths of Iraqi children each month. I HAVE NOT SEEN IT IN ANY NEWSPAPERS. (Though I’m not saying it hasn’t been printed) This information is indisputable, why then, is it not on every single front page, of every newspaper in the world? Well, the editors of newspapers are known as ‘gatekeepers’, who pick and choose what a paper prints and what it doesn’t. Surely it follows, the editors of newspapers control, and effectively censor, what is said. (And if you pick up any newspaper you should find an editorial (even though few papers call it an editorial), which is a sign of the type of political ideology and, consequently, bias that may occur in that paper).
But, even so, the people right at the top of media corporations are the ones ultimately in control of what is said. They employ the editors and control what they say. It is important to understand these people are owners of huge corporations, primarily interested in profits, not telling the truth. They are in favour of right wing governments that will endlessly give them tax rebates and other useful laws that will help their companies make a larger profit. They support wars (and censor information) because they make more money (news sells in wars). They also tend to have friends in other companies in equally high places who would benefit from wars.
I think, in the case of the Iraqi children, the information is hidden from the general public because it is generally shocking. In these circumstances 99.9999% of the public would be shocked at the upholding of sanctions by their own government. But saying this, withholding information, such as this, has a deeper meaning. As I’ve said above, the people in charge can benefit. Media moguls never make decisions knowingly that will not make them benefit in some way or another. After all, this is a business of making as much money as you can! If the bosses are free to tell lies to the vast majority of the population, then they are affectively free to make a greater profit (my point being: they are free to exploit people). They can also misrepresent local topics, such as welfare, often resulting in profit for either them or someone they are connected or associated to. They can make it easier for the government to pass laws by swaying public opinion. This could lead to laws passed to benefit them. Really Hurin, the list goes on and on and on and on…
Moving on to the second section:
There are loads of people benefiting from this war, not all of them from the Bush Administration. I know Dick Cheney was, or still is, CEO of Halliburton Corporation. They are the single largest company to benefit from the Iraq war. Is it a coincidence that they have seen a profit rise of 30% since the Iraq war? I’ll leave it there. Another beneficiary was the world’s largest weapons manufacturer, Lockheed Martin. The list goes on and on and on…
However, most of the companies who benefit from the war have some connection to the Bush Administration. It is hardly a surprise that information is often withheld from the ‘general public’ in order to maintain public support. Huge corporations fund (or invest in) election campaigns for presidential candidates in the U.S.A. They obviously want their money back, with interest. This is why information such as dead Iraqi children is withheld at times appropriate to the Bush regime. It brings me to the conclusion that they are bastards (with lack of a better word), they really are.
And just in case someone was going to try and criticise my answer (which is expected), it follows that in order for this argument to work, you have to assume people believe, or are influenced by, what they read and see in the media. Personally, I think they do. (Why would we have age restrictions on movies, music etc?)
A response to your most recent article:
I agree that religion plays a key role in the governing of America. Apparently, Bush is personally seeing to it that homosexuals should not be given the right to marriage! This sort of fundamental Christianity is, again, not a very good representation to other countries. On one hand, we are fighting the war on terror and promoting freedom, and on the other, we are limiting our freedoms at home! It is hypocrisy at the highest order. Furthermore, during all this, Bush has also used the ‘war on terror’ as a safeguard against criticism on the failing American economy, as well as the implementation of ‘Patriot’ laws. As you said, the word patriot used in that context is humiliating.
Back to religion, I think there is a very disturbing link between religion and nationalism in America—definitely more than in other Western countries. Oddly, the case is alike in certain Middle East countries, the very ones that are suffering from terrorism. This, as well as increasing bias when dealing with situations like the Iraq war, also provides countries with a bad representation of their ‘liberators’. Another disadvantage outlines that people tend to believe they are doing the right thing when such a powerful thing like religion drives them.
I hope to hear from you soon…
Daniel-
Well done, I’m surprised to see a person of your age on this site. Even more so, a person as well informed. Keep up the research. And keep up the fight…
Robulous,
I sure GWB gets pleasure in knowing you are one day closer to meeting your death, too.
Rightwinger, typical of a republican to find the easiest line to attack and hone on to it, if you actually have some intellegence to express with that mouth of yours then why dont you go after a real point instead of someones personal feelings? Any asshole can spout a meaningless one liner and leave. So if you have some real point to make here like a convincing arguement for Bush (which I have yet to hear from anyone let alone a mindless dittohead), why dont you make it , and if not then why dont you do us all a favor and shut the fuck up.
I agree with Hurin Bush R Evil
9/11 had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq is all about oil. Bush is evil incarnate
‘nuff said.
HERE HERE!!! I Concur Well said
I’m back. I’m sick of reading this bullshit. I hate to say it but some people who respond on this website fly off the handle, not cool, bring it back to earth guys. I will probably be leaving this website and never returning, due to the fact that midterms start next week. peace. prosperity to Bill and Hurin
Dude theres no way that daniel is a twelve year old. Thats ridiculous. Media bias? Read Bias by Bernard GoldBloom, never heard of it? not uncommon, it and its author were blacklisted from the press. Check it out. now to stop procrastinating
I go only a few comments down, and I see bullcrap. War is, sadly, a ubiquitous component of human history. However, it has been shown that reckless use of this argument of kings has led to much disaster. And going to Iraq was certainly reckless. It has gained us nothing. Iraq now belongs to nobody, except the dead. I mourn all of them. The 650 precious lives lost by the coalition. I got to see their faces on the CNN website. Do you know what an impact that has? To see those poor souls, whose faces looked so brave, are now six feet under. All in the name of politics. ruthless, evil, powerhungry politics. look at the faces of those now dead human beings. Bush must believe he is God’s knight on earth. Nice crusade you have us in, Mr. Bush. You will be punished for your lies. First in this election, and then on the day of reckoning that is soon to come. If you have any hope, become humble, admit your lies, and at least save your soul. Take the consequences, for you have called for them.
I thought I was done speaking yesterday, but I have a question to pose. If there are no WMD’s in Iraq, then why did we go to war? If I am not mistaken, I believe Bush and his associates said that it was to rid the world of an evil man (obviously this is a paraphrase). Well, if that is the case, I hope to see American tanks rolling into Pyongyang by this time tomorrow, and hope to see those same tanks in Beijing and about 50 other world capitals by this time next week.
P.S. Good luck with the Chinese, Mr. Bush. I do hope our world survives after that war.
Actually Chuckam, I have heard reports that suggest very strongly that bush does in fact beleive that he in a worker of god in the world. I have heard him quoted in articles on counterpunch.org saying that he beleives that he beleives that he was appointed by God to lead America. This kind of suggestion scares me deeply, as someone with that kind of delusion is going to keep going with what they feel they need to do at all cost, and cannot be reasoned with as “God is passing them thier orders” this actually coincides very well with the behavior we have seen from bush. He is never willing to take responsibility for, or even admit misteakes, and his mindset is always summed up by the simplistic Good vs Evil argument, and a blunt “you are either with us or against us.” Beyond this it is remarkable what lengths he is willing to go to to avoid being found out and called out on the lies desception misdeads mismanagment and underhandedness that most sane people can easily recognise as his to claim. Republicans gave Clinton crap for being slippery and hard to pin things on, but Clinton never had shit on bush. Clinton was impeached for a blowjob, bush has yet to receive any official reprimand for sending our troops to die in a war based on a personal vendetta. To my mind that is equivalent to him shooting each fallen soldier in the head personally. Now bush has resorted to using footage of firefighters carrying bodies from ground zero and footage of the world trade center for a campeign commercial trumpeting his “steady leadership in times of tragedy,” even in spite of the protests of the firefighters union, and the fact that the sympathy and support that our allies readily gave us after the tragedy (which both could have been used to bring about real multilateral change in policies that help make terrorists) were wasted on bushes idiotic war with saddam. “Steady Leadership” seems to be bushes new campeign platform, as it has become very clear that he has no record to run on and no real qualities to offer, so instead of specific accomplishments, we have nebulous hypocracy.
American people aren’t going to like me for what is posted below. It is a section of an article revealing the similarities of Senator John Kerry and President George Bush. It seems there is not much difference between the two after all (save a few billion-brain cells!)
“Progressive Policy Institute, an arm of the Democratic Leadership Council, published a 19-page manifesto for the “New Democrats”, who include all the principal Democratic Party candidates, and especially John Kerry. This called for “the bold exercise of American power” at the heart of “a new Democratic strategy, grounded in the party’s tradition of muscular internationalism”. Such a strategy would “keep Americans safer than the Republicans’ go-it-alone policy, which has alienated our natural allies and overstretched our resources. We aim to rebuild the moral foundation of US global leadership Just as the plans of the Bush gang were written by the neoconservatives, so John Kerry in his campaign book, A Call to Service, lifts almost word for word the New Democrats’ warmongering manifesto. “The time has come,” he writes, “to revive a bold vision of progressive internationalism” along with a “tradition” that honours “the tough-minded strategy of international engagement and leadership forged by Wilson and Roosevelt… and championed by Truman and Kennedy in the cold war”. Almost identical thoughts appear on page three of the New Democrats’ manifesto: As Democrats, we are proud of our party’s tradition of tough-minded internationalism and strong record in defending America. Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D Roosevelt and Harry Truman led the United States to victory in two world wars… [Truman’s policies] eventually triumphed in the cold war. President Kennedy epitomized America’s commitment to “the survival and success of liberty”.”
So there you have it. The difference, John Pilger writes, “between Coke and Pepsi”. If you guys want the rest of the article, go to:
http://pilger.carlton.com/print
Bill, I sorta kinda couldn’t make sense of what you said. I mean, if the idea that Dems are pushing “tough internationalism” and the policies of Truman/Kennedy would mean that the Democrat’s mind is still stuck in the Cold War and that there is an open threat from some entity like the Soviet Union (China does fit this criterion, but trade heavily reliant on the U.S. markets restrains China). Besides, the possiblity of a tank battle in Europe is nil. As for staying in the Cold War mindset (we say China is the Main Enemy, terrorists are just nuisances), it would mean that the democrats are violating a key principle of liberalism: progress in all aspects.
But then again, I didn’t quite understand what you meant…
well, i gottta say george bush sucks. just go to my site for all the details. all politics suck. really bad. im just going to canada where marijuana is legal. lmao. cya
Question: Where, prior to invading Iraq, does the Bush administration blame Iraq for 9/11 other than to reference the tragedy as something we must be aware of and not forget. I know that now Bush says “there’s no link between Iraq & 9/11”, but who ever said there was as a reason for invading?
Bush = worst president EVER. And I do mean EVER.
Not only should he be impeached and lose the presidency, but he should get the electric chair.
An $87 billion debt. A pointless war in Iraq that has let to the death of thousands of Americans. Tax cut upon tax cut supporting the rich and not giving two fucks about the rest of the country. Lie after lie, in front of the camera, to the American public. And last but not least, he aint even legit.
Matter of fact, not only do I hate Bush, but I hate 90% of all Republicans. They’re all a bunch of fucking racist, close-minded, ignorant bastards. Bush can kiss my ass, as can Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter.
And for all you right winged pricks that read this post seathing with anger, ill save you the time: Yes, I am a crazy, loud-mouthed, foul radical Liberal. And guess what?? Im damn FUCKING proud of it too.
Off with Bush’s head!!!! This country has gone down the shitter the last 4 years, and im fucking sick of it.
Bill, while I do understand your point about Kerry sharing some key traits with GWB I think the difference of several billion brain cells that you mentioned is fairly key. To me one of the most dangerous things about bush is that his alcohol demented brain can only comprehend situations around the world in the context of a simple black and white: good vs. evil. Government under Kerry may also bear similarities to that of the bush administration, there are several key differences that lead me to support Kerry. First off when shit happens on Kerry’s watch which I believe will happen given the fact that Bush took a violent situation and made it worse, is that Kerry will be more likely to take a less simplistic aproach and may be more likely to use diplomatic and socio-economic tactics whereas the perfered bush approach to anything seems to be violent assault. Kerry has fought in a war as well so he knows the horror he is sending people into, and therefore he will most likely try to avoid it in situations where bush would jump in without a second thought. Second Kerry is not using “Christian” beliefs to further his campeign, and I see no reason why he would suddenly become a president who, like Bush, would be willing to comprimise the constitution in favor of his personal take on religion. Third I beleive that Kerry, like any reasonable person realizes that taxes need to go up to cover the defecit. Some of these issues probably matter more to me than to you given that I live in the US, and I may be wrong about any one of them , only time and the outcome of this election will tell for sure. I also beleive however that a remedy for the horrible direction that this country has taken can not be changed through electoral action alone, particularly if Kerry is elected, and that sustained activism is the only way that we are going to get the country off the road to hell down which bush is currently steering it.
P.S. all those on this site concerned about the current directions of american politics and the policies of the bush regime are stronly encouraged to visit a site called MoveOn.org, which is devoted to turning this country around through petitions, letter writing drives to senators, etc. as well as getting Bush the fuck out of office.
GWB ISN’T MY PRESIDENT HIS FAMILY FIX THE ELECTION HE DIDN’T EVEN WIN THE MAJORITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ALL U HAVE TO DO IS WATCH HIM FOR TWO SECONDS AND REALIZE HE’S A MORON. HE MIGHT OF WENT TO AN IVY LEAGUE COLLEGE BUT HE DIDN’T PASS ON HIS OWN HE MADE IT OUT CAUSE OF HIS DADDY’S MONEY AND POWER. ALL OF YOU REPLICANS THOUGHT CAUSE CLINTON SMOKE WEED ONCE AND DIDN’T GET A BUZZ WHAT ABOUT THE COKED UP DRUNK HE WAS A HORRIBLE GOVENER WHO RUIN TEXAS ECONOMICS AND EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM AND KILLED THOUSAND OF INNOCENT PEOPLE IN TEXAS THROUGH THE DEATH PENATY HE DON’T CARE WHO HE KILLS AMERICAN OR NOT. I DON’T KNOW IF HE’S RACIST LIKE HIS DAD BUT HE SURE IS PREJUDICE AND IF SAADAM WOULD OF PAIED HIM OFF WITH MONEY LAND OR OIL THIS WAR WOULD OF NEVER OF HAPPEN WHAT ABOUT N. KOREA THEY HAVE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND TOLD BUSH AND COMPANY TO THEIR FACE THEY ARE NOT GOING TO DISMANTLE THEM AND WOULD USE THEM IF U.S. TRY TO STOP AND BUSH BACK OFF OF THEM AND IT TO YEARS BEFORE THE STEP IN TO HELP HAITI AND THEY SCREWED THAT UP HE SAYS HE WANT TO ELIMANATE ALL THE EVIL DICTATORS WHAT ABOUT THE ONES IN AFRICA SOUTH AMERICA OR CENTRAL AMERICA WHY BECAUSE ONE THE SKIN COLOR AND HIS WASN’T THREATEN BUY THEM. COME ON PEOPLE HE LIED FROM DAY ONE HE’S BEEN LYING SINCE HE’S BEEN IN THE PUBLIC EYE VIETNAM MAYBE IF HE ACTUCALLY WOULDE OF SERVED HIS COUNTRY INSTEAD OF HIS DAD GETTING HIM AN EASY WAY OUT AND HE DIDN’T SHOW UP FOR THAT HALF THE TIME ON LEFT A YEAR EARLY AND HE WONT LET THE RESERVES RETIRE NOW COME IF THIS MAN STAYS IN OFFICE FOR FOUR MORE YEARS OUR ECONOMY GOING TO BE WORST IT’S BEEN SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION THOSE TAX CUT DONT HELP THE POOR AND MIDDLE CLASS HE GIVES THE RICH BREAKS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS AND FIGURE WHERE POOR SO HE’LL GIVE THE POOR 300 AND FIGURE HE CAN SHUT US TILL SOME ELSE IS AND CAN HAVE THE PROBLEMS. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NEED TO WAKE AND VOTE HIM OUT OF OFFICE BEFORE HE STARTS WWIII AND GET THE COUNTRY DESTROYED.
He makes me want to vomit! He is a LIAR and is only look out for his self. He calls himself a UNITER…PLEASE! Americans are at each others throats thanks to this Monkey! I can’t believe people don’t see what he is doing to America! He is killing it from the inside out! Things will be A LOT better without him believe me.
And since I am black and hate this fucker you guys will automatically think I am Democratic…
He deserves nothing from the people of America, most people that vote for him are either white, rich, racist, bible thumpers, god fears, older, homphobic, and much much more.
Leave no child behind my ass! The money should be going into shchools, not this little WMD war rampage! I’ve been around the net and I am happy that a lot of use to be Republicans are (for the first time) voting against Republicans!
Not only is Bush pure evil he is a moron.
Sorry Hurin i’ve been away for a while (family troubles). I totally agree with what you said and i couldn’t have put it better. As you implied, only time will tell if Kerry turns out to be the person he claims he is-presumming he is elected. Until then, we (but primarily the people who live in America) should do everything we can to expel Bush and his administration from office.
If it takes petitions, protests, days of action, and so on; so be it. Whether Kerry is elected or Bush is asassinated, it will be a good day for the planet Earth when George Bush is no longer president of the United States!
Almost all of these arguments against George W. Bush are without grounds of support and like one comment says, just liberals out bashing the conservative Bush. What in fact we have is a president who has cared enough about the united States of America to send troops across the globe in order to secure our freedom. The question of whether or not there were WMDs is not something to be blamed entirely on George Bush. Information was given to us from several foreign sources as well as our CIA, and he acted upon it. Also after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, the UN put sanctions on Iraq which the UN failed to uphold, and the dictator was allowed to continue illegal activities. This is why in 1998, President Clinton ordered the bombing of strategic targets inside of Iraq, many inside Baghdad itself. When in 2002 when UN weapons inspectors again went to Iraq, they were still denied access to many areas, but they took this lightly and did not pursue a UN ultimatum to continue their search. This is where the UN went wrong and America went right. The United States then began a procedure giving Saddam several options besides war and stepping down, but yet again, Hussein still would not budge from his hardline position. Perhaps he thought that America’s army would not attack with the bleeding heart liberals protesting the soon-to-be war, and therefore, did not sway in his stance. It was after all these chances that Bush was forced to launch the war into Iraq. I believe Saddam had WMDs and managed to move them to other areas, possibly Syria, before the war started. But one must ask themselves, even if no WMDs turn up, wasnt Saddam himself a Weapon of Mass Destruction? Ask the Kurds of the North or the families of people who dissapeared through the night and were returned in a body bag or not even returned at all. Just look at clips on TV from the days that American forces took Baghdad or the day on which Saddam was captured……you will find yourself looking at thousands of Iraqis celebrating their final freedom from the oppressive regime that they lived under. As my closing statement, do me a favor and ask yourself this question: If you were at constant risk of being killed by a dictator for speaking out against the government, would you want someone to help you? This is very simple, almost everyone of you would be executed by that dictator because what is on this page is arguments against our government. But thankfully we have a free country under which we have the freedom of speech, and this is not a worry to us. But what if?
President Bush may have done one of the single most humane things possible by freeing those people in iraq. What I don’t understand is why many democrats which are pro-humanitarian efforts such as Kosovo, or Somolia, would be so against the President in going in to help these people. Or is it simply the fact that we didn’t have the United Nations backing that makes our presence in Iraq that bad. The United Nations failed to recognize a serious threat to the well being of people in that country. This dictator was mass murdering his own people, many because they belonged to a seperate sect of muslim religion, or if they didn’t agree with his way of ruling, sound familier. Example for those who don’t see the connection, World War 2. If you people believe that Bill Clinton was doing everything right for this country I’d have to say your sadly mistaken on that point. If anything the man was a greater risk to our national security than any other president that I can think of, he’s the only one I’ve ever heard of losing the nuclear launch codes. If you want to read something truly disturbing about our friend FORMER President Bill Clinton I suggest you pick up the Book “Derilection of Duty” by the auther Robert Patterson. Robert Patterson is the man who carried the nuclear football for Former President Clinton. He brings to light some truly distrubing facts about his administration, their actions, and their compromises to national security. Read it before you comment on this statement.
For all of those, the majority it would seem, against President Bush and his actions, I’d like you to answer me this question:
If you could do such a better job, what would you do differently? You don’t like the War in Iraq…what would you do differently? You don’t like his policies…what would you do differently?
You think it’s such an easy thing to do. Let me tell you something, as involved in professional politics, I can tell you that the job of the President is not an easy task. And for those using the argument that he was paid through school and that he’s stupid or whatever, take note that just because you don’t do well in a University does not mean you are stupid or unintelligent. There are thousands of Americans who have not attended a University and are successful in their own regard.
As far as being inspired by God…is that really such a bad thing? All of our previous Presidents have had some sort of religious faith and applied it to their job. Not to mention that this country was founded on Christian principles and a Christian styled way of life, but allowed room for people’s right to choose. The President has chosen to use his faith in his decisions, and no one should strip him of that. And one final note, when the President was innagurated, he placed his hand on the Bible and accepted the Presidency as Presidents have and will continue to do.
I have to agree completely with Waylon. As for his first point i guarantee almost none of you could even do 1% as good as he does because all you can say is the F word and give no arguments. Creating foreign policy is extremely complex and would be difficult for anyone. Many of you bash President Bush for his use of religion in politics, but that is his right as secured by freedom of religion. It does not interfere with seperation of church and state, and he is following God throughout his presidency. The President has the same rights as any other US citizen, and those rights include freedom of religion. Basically to sum this up, I completely agree with Waylon and would like to congratulate him on an excellent post.
Belka95: Ooh, I’ll give you some arguments against those ‘facts’ you’ve given me. I’ll also give you some grounded arguments on why Bush should go. For instance, the guy who has written the book completely criticising President Bush’s home defence policy before 9/11, unfortunately his name slips my mind. I mean do you guys not read the news? This guy was the leading authority on ‘terrorist’ matters on U.S. soil. He claims that 9/11 MAY have even have been avoidable! Now if that isn’t a reason to oust Bush, what is?
Another example of your immense intellect
“the UN put sanctions on Iraq which the UN failed to uphold, and the dictator was allowed to continue illegal activities.”
Please give me a source. To my knowledge the economic sanctions were upheld throughout the 90s till march 2003. They also happened to kill 567,000 children (that was a conservative estimate taken out by the United Nations Children’s Fund – UNICEF and the Red Cross. Check it out, I dare you.
Wana bet what Madelien Albright said on national T.V. about that? Well, she said it was worth it, that is to say, the sanctions were worth the deaths of half a million children! Please type her name in with other information on any good search engine and you’ll find the answer.
Any way the point is that America and Britian voted to hold the sacntions on Iraq. Not the United Nations as a whole, which is exactly what you are implying. It was the American and British representatives who voted the sanctions in at the start and it was them who kept them going till the second gulf war.
A little taste of what’s to come.
“This is why in 1998; President Clinton ordered the bombing of strategic targets inside of Iraq, many inside Baghdad itself.”
Yes they did attack Iraq, but one of the bombs landed on a factory that was suspected of producing arms. It turns out the most lethal substance they produced was paraceotomal (if that’s how you spell it)! They killed 50 people including women and children.
I’m going to have fun rebutting your inaccurate representations of America’s history but unfortunately I haven’t the time. Expect more from me in the future, I’ll also cite sources to make it really easy for you…
As my right honurable friend put it
Try and explain this
Check this out.
http://www.iacenter.org/sanimpct.htm
Belka, Waylon and Read the facts, Possibly the most humerously ironic thing about this recent right wing blitz denying that any of us liberals have facts with which to back our arguments, is the way it coincides with the testimony of Richard Clarke to the 911 commision. For those of you who may not know what I am talking about, he is the former Counterterrorism Czar of the Regan, Bush 1 Clinton, and Bush 2 administrations, and he was testifying to the commision about the way that Bush 2 and co. disregarded his warnings about the threat posed by Al Queda i prior to the attacks of 9/11. Clarke also feels that the war with Iraq is undermining the war on terror. Your attack seems rather like a repeat of a phenomenon I see over and over these days: the right wing doesnt like the facts as they stand, so they deny them and make up new ones. Just for your benefit, I have decided to post a list of facts that support my dissent of the Bush administrations policy. 1)The administration used the aftermath of 9/11 to make war with Iraq, by using scare tactics involving WMD, links with Al Queda, and claims that Iraq was buying uranium from nigeria, none of which have been validated one year after the war was declared. 2)The reconstruction of Afghanistan was put on the back burner for the war on Iraq. 3)President Bush is now presiding over an overall decrease in american jobs, he is the first president to have earned this distinction since Hoover. 4)President Bush has stood in the way of the 9/11 commission on numerous occasions including his effort to deny them his daily breifings from prior to the 9/11 attacks, documents for which supeonas were eventually threatened. 5) The Bush administration has recently tried to deny that they claimed Iraq was an imminent threat to america in favor of a more humanitarian focus, one which you all seem to have bought into. 6) Bush devised tax cuts to give a peice of the budget surplus he began his term with back to the american taxpayers. This surplus is now a $500 billion defecit due to these tax cuts, which he is now calling on congress to make permenant. 7)Halliburton, Dick Cheneys old company was given contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq and to allow them to supply the troops in Iraq with meals without any bidding. Halliburton has recently come under fire from officials who say that they are overcharging the government. 8)Neither the expected expenditures from the war on Iraq or the presence in Afghanistanwere taken in to consideration during the drafting of the current budget. Well this list could go on and on for quite sometime but I have limited time and I think you get the point. I dont read the news paper every damn day to have a bunch of conservatives tell me that in order for something to be true, it has to be officially sanctioned as beneficial news to the white house.
By the way one point I missed earlier about religion… I am not opposed to any religion or the usage of the religion by those in office. What I oppose in George W Bush is the fact that he hides behind his religion and uses it as confirmation for his personal morality while at the same time shitting on the message of Jesus Christ as told by the Bible. Christian or not I do not care, but I find it very offensive that he will call himself Christian, and at the same time launch a war unprovoked on another soverign nation in the name of saving its people. Jesus didnt save with bombs, that wasnt his message. Jesus found peaceful ways of resolving conflict and dealing with opression, and even though there was plenty of evil in the time of Jesus he didnt run around branding people as “evildoers” but forgave them thier sins and asked that we try to do the same. “Judge not lest ye be judged and found wanting” said Jesus and Bush, that true and pure Disciple has presided over more executions than any govener in the history of the US, has lashed out at allies of our nation, and made war with Iraq over a vendetta. I will consider Bush a Christian the day I have my head filled with maggot ridden horseshit. Understand I know that everyone sins, noone is perfect, but Bush isnt even trying. He doesn’t care. Christianity is his platform not the guide by which he aspires to live. THis is why many people (myself included) who are religious (I myself am a Universalist) are abhorred by the president’s faith-based militant doctrine. And with good reason, after all isnt Osama bin-Laden also a religous man? Frankly I would be thrilled by a Christian president, but only if he is willing to act the religion more than he preaches it to Pat Robertson, and the moral majority. P.S. With regard to the question of whether or not i think I could do a better job than Bush in teh presidency it doesnt really matter as I am 20, and that makes me inelligible to run. However I am in college and doing better than Bush did in a harder feild (Biochemistry). My personal opinion however is that Bush is the WORST president in the history of America, and that John Kerry would do a much better job (or almost any politian in the country for that matter).
Hurin,It is true that Osama Bin-Laden is a religious man, but he takes his religion and twists it out of proportion. No where in his religion does it state to fly planes into buildings and kill as many civilians as humanly possible. Quite frankly I think it is wrong to insult the man who has actually made an effort to hunt this man down, and still is. And what right do you have to judge him about what religion he is, and how it guides his life, only 1 person can do that. Now the war in Iraq may be lacking sufficient proof to prove any of the initial reasons we went in for, but doesn’t freeing those people from a tyrant, and trying to help them more almost justify our being there. I have a friend over there enlisted now. I pray for him every night that he is safe. Just because I see a need for our troops to be there, even if it isn’t to find weapons of mass destruction, doesn’t mean I don’t care about them. Now I mean no personal insult by this, but, when is the last time you saw a need for a president to use a biochemistry degree. I’ll admit President Bush didn’t do so well in school, and the frat party photos of him don’t help, but when is the last time you saw any president take a stand for something they believe in this close to an election and stick with it, wrong or not. Examples (the war in Iraq, war on terror, and on a lighter note, his opposition of homosexual marriages.) If anything that very last example should be a sign of his religion guiding him in his work, because if he was thinking pure polotics, he would have realized that he just screwed himself out of millions of votes. By the way Read “Derilection of Duty” by Robert Patterson if you think President Bush was so bad.
Read the facts
I just cant get over the irony of your name! Ha ha ha ha…
Why dont you try reading “Bushisms”. Watch your smile grow as you see how dumb Bush really is. Ha Ha Ha Ha…
FUCK YOU GEORGE BUSH YOU MOTHER FUCKING GOD DAME MOTHER FUCKING TERROIST, I HOPE YOU GET CAPTURED JUST LIKE SADDOM DID YOU FUCKING EVIL CHILD KILLER.YOU KILLED MY THREE SONS YOU BASTERD.I HOPE YOU BURN IN HELL YOU MOTHER FUCKER!
David, I’m sorry but you seem to have taken my statement to be something its not. I am pro-Bush. However, I don’t consider my self to be either republican or democratic for that nature, both sides are too corrupt, and all the other ones are so tied up in special interest groups its no longer funny. Lets face it, not all of our Presidents have been geniuses. But it becomes an issue when they fail to do their job because of it. In my personal opinion, President Bush has not failed to do the job he was elected for. If anything I feel he is doing more that some previous Presidents to help ensure the national security of this great country. Not to mention, this is on a seperate note, when is the last time you saw any President go into an area designated an active battlezone, just to have dinner and small talk with our troops, the only example I can think of is Richard Nixon in Vietnam, however he wasn’t in a designated danger zone to the best of my knowledge, I may be wrong. Sure you people may all hate Bush, but he is the one sending our troops overseas to defend your right to criticize the man, to ensure that none of us have to live in fear of a man who wants to kill us just because of the country we live in. It may not convince you that he is doing his duty as President, but it convinced me. I know this comment doesn’t really go along with my name, because it is mostly my opinion, but I figured I should just put it out there, show where I stand in the matter. I mean no personal insult by this, I only want to bring things to light.
Read the facts, You took in half of my point about Bush and Osama bin Laden, however the point that you missed was the fact that Bush also twists his religion out of proportion. Jesus was not about violence or intolerance as Bush has shown himself to be in practice. You assert that Bush is fighting in Iraq to secure our liberties at home but all the while the Patriot Act is undermining the freedoms he is supposedly fighting for, In recent months for instance i heard of a case where a court tried to supeona a college where a protest was held for dubious resons that seemed to be more related to the protest than anything else. Here is another example Josef Padilla has been held outside the U.S. in Guantanamo bay as an “enemy combatant” he still has not been given the right to see a lawyer or charged with anything. He is there because he alledgedly conspired to set off a dirty bomb, however no evidence has been produced to back this claim. He has been there for two years. Bush is hunting bin-Laden at this point in time but when breifed by Richard Clarke about al Queda shortly after his administration took power he showed little desire to take action. After invading Afghanistan he went on to attack Iraq without having finished the job in Afghanistan, or collecting bin Laden. THese are the reasons why Richard Clark, the respected Counterterrorism czar of several administrations resigned from the service of this administration, and has recently taken to attacking it. This is also why you will probably hear a lot of character assasinations directed toward him by administration officials and republican allies. I do have to agree, the Iraqi people are better off without the dictatorship of saddam hussein, i think any resonable person would agree with that, however the way in which this was acheived has compromised our relationship with many of our allies (just ask Bill), and frankly if Bush doesnt suceed in the re-building of Iraq the dictatorship to come has the potential to be a lot worse. In case you dont know the U.S. has a history of support for Hussein, even having given him WMD to use on the Iranians, during the Iraq-Iran war. Now that there is a significant terrorist presence in Iraq the fundamentalist state that might arise from a bungled nation building would almost certainly represent an imminant threat to America. Despite the high stakes of this America and coalition have gotten almost nowhere with this, an interim constitution was just recently signed only to be protested by the leader of the Shiite majority several days later. We were wrong to go in with out the UN and now we are paying the price. By the way, my condolences for your friend who is leaving for Iraq, I hope he makes it out alright. I had a friend who was in danger of going, however he realized early in boot camp that he would not be able to kill if it came down to it and received a status as a concientios objector. In response to your question, I do not think a president nessesarily needs a degree in biochemistry, it was mostly just to make a point that I mentioned it. Bush does have a record of disregarding science in his policies however, this was recently pointed out by a panel of concerned scientists comprised by 60 prominant scientists including 20 nobel lauriates. Often his scientific views are either blatantly uninformed, or comprimised by his personal religious convictions. This is another sore point for me toward the administration. Well I could continue on with this but my post is approaching the size of a novella, and I dont want to be here staring at my computer all night. Sorry about its somewhat rambling nature, I was more focused on vomiting facts than forming a cohesive thought.
Hurin, First of all I appreciate the formality of your argument, its alot harder to take people seriously when every other word out of their mouths is cursing. Second of all, your right Jesus wasn’t a violent man, but he wasn’t a man either. And even Jesus chased people from the temple with a whip or a leather band when he was enraged. But God knew that war between people was an undeniable certainty. I wish I could quote directly from scripture but there is a line in there that goes something along the lines of Those who stand against God shall fall, while those who are with me shall never perish, or something along those lines, I can’t quote scripture like I used too. As for your hatred of the patriot act, yes I do feel that it is an invasion of privacy, however if the enemy was sitting at your front door, you’d want the government to do everything possible to find them, and if you don’t have anything to hide, why be worried. Now I do know that the patriot act does promote some amount of profiling, unfortunatly this is a necessary evil of it. But I can’t say that I’ve actually seen an asian muslim extremest. (No insult was meant to anyone by that comment) No as for that case about Josef Padilla, I’d like a little more information, such as his citizenship status, nationality, and the exact charges if you don’t mind. Now as for the U.S. giving Iraq wmd’s for the Irag/Iran issue, I can’t say I’ve ever heard of that, I’ll assume for the sake of argument that it came from a reliable sorce, if you want to give me a link to that as well I’d be appreciative, but the U.S. also gave weapons to Afghanastan during the russian occupations by the spetznaz. Now we are having to clean up messes in both countries that we helped out in the past, our good deeds are coming back to haunt us it would seem to me. Now as to the comment about the U.N. it is my personal opinion that they have become useless. It would seem they do everything in their power now just to not help us. We had their support when we went to Kosovo, again to help out innocent civillians, but with Iraq, they had seemingly no interest, their exact reasoning I can’t be sure of, but the weapons hunts certainly didn’t help things any. As to why they choose to help with only certain things and not others just as great in importance I can’t understand why. Now the problem with the current government trying to be established in Iraq is, they haven’t quite grasped that seperation of church and state thing, and given their culture and history, I really don’t think they ever will, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to help. Also, are you a democrat or republican, or other? By the way, I appreciate your concern for my friend, but please no condolences, those are for the dead, and he is not amongst them.
Ok, to start things off, I would like to adress this mainly to Bill and Hurin. First of all, your understanding of this issue makes me laugh Bill. The UN put sanctions on Iraq to stop him from continuing building a war machine that he could threaten the world with. Saddam Hussein was given several billions of dollars in economic aid as part of his sanction, but yet we killed nearly half a million children? Seems to me that the money was not going to feed the children. The man was building palaces for himself and continuing to build a weapons program. You criticize bush for his war, but you obviously fail to remember Clinton’s near war with Saddam in 1998. The same problems were arising then, and recently on Larry King Live, Bill Clinton said that his administration knew Saddam had WMDs, but he did not have the chance to act on the matter. It was Bush’s acting on it that Clinton said he admired the Bush administration’s commitment to making the world safer. When the UN failed to uphold their sanctions, it was in essence, The UN who didnt stop the deaths of the children. It was the responsibility of the UN to get involved, remove Hussein, and ensure the economic aid was properly distributed. I would like to touch base on one other point while Im at it. The gas attack on the Kurdish village…..that was cold-blooded and intended murder of men, women, and children. The next issue I would like to touch upon is Hurin’s comments about Richard Clarke. First of all, we are not dumb, we know who Richard Clarke is and you only highlighted parts of his testimony that stand for your position. If you watched the whole thing, you would find him talking about the lack of inter-agency cooperation and the going through thousands of pieces of information a day, and then piecing it together. He said it was nearly an impossible job, which it would obviously be with the world being as large as it is. You comment on how he said the situation may have been avoidable, but the situation could have also been resolved in the Clinton administration following the attack on the USS Cole. Im sorry, but 6 Tomohawk Cruise Missles is a relatively weak response. That was Clinton’s entire response to the Cole. If he would have taken the oppurtunity to declare a war on terrorism, Im sure 9/11 would not have happened. Also as to Clarke’s statements, he mentioned that it was only vaguely discussed, the possibility of planes being used as bombs, and it was not considered the threat by the CIA, FBI, or the Counter-terrorism agencies. Now I would like to touch upon the issue of religion. Jesus was the only perfect man to walk the Earth and is the only man who will ever be perfect. However, we are all missing on very important part of the religious argument. The Bible. The Bible says that there will be wars and rumors of wars until the 2nd coming of Christ, and it also goes to mention that the young nation will win victory in the city of Babylon. The city of Babylon is where present-day Baghdad is, and the young nation is in referral to America. I know I am kind of bouncing around on subjects, but please forgive me for I am very tired, but I would like to comment on a quote by Plato: “Only the dead have seen the end of war”. Sadly enough this comment is true. Now as for Bush hiding behind his religion? He isnt hiding behind it, he is letting it guidde him in his leadership of this country. If you study the founding fathers, you will find that they were all deeply religious men, and that they followed God throughout the creation of this country. Now Im going to touch it before you liberals out there slam it, I understand they wrote in the constitution a seperation of churh and state. That comment is meant to stop the nation from creating a national religion. It does not say to keep religion out of government, but we have managed to do that and ensure that we will not quarrel over it anymore than we already do. I know one thing though as a Christian. As long as we follow God, this nation will continue to prevail, and I hope that every person reading and posting these forums hope that America continues to prevail, because guess what, its our home and its a mighty nice home. A quick comment to John O’Kill: Seek Anger management help. Well I want to end on a more positive note. I want to thank Read the Facts and Hurin for helping to keep this debate clean from cuss words, and I will look forward to continue our debate. Support our troops and God Bless America.
“I Pledge Allegiance,To The Flag,Of The United States of America, And To The Republic,For Which It Stands, One Nation, UNDER GOD, Indivisible, With Liberty, And Justice For All.”
That’s funny, I thought the reason American and British troops were being attacked was because they were invading countries not ‘liberating’ them. Seeing that Bush’s compassion for humanity in these poor countries comes under constant criticism, maybe we should find out just why troops are attacked almost everyday in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Well, maybe the recent attacks in Afghanistan are due to this:
The New York Times reported, ’ [Bush] demanded the elimination of truck convoys that provide much of the food and other supplies to Afghanistan’s civilian population’. (Strictly humanitarian of course.)
Or maybe its:
The US is the only state on record to have been condemned by the World Court for international terrorism (in Nicaragua) and has vetoed a UN Security Council resolution calling on governments to observe international law. (You see, this I what I like to call an example of ‘land of the free, home of the slave’.)
Or maybe its because: As the U.S. is clearly a model for the rest of the world to follow, perhaps we should look at those ‘suspected’ terrorists at home. More terrorists are given training and sanctuary in the United States than anywhere on earth. They include mass murderers, torturers, former and future tyrants and assorted international criminals. This is virtually unknown to the American public, thanks to the freest media on earth. (I know you’ll laugh, but listen to the following, and maybe you’ll stop laughing because these people are living and well, in the United States - legally.) In his book Rogue State , former senior State Department official Bill Blum describes a typical Florida trial of three anti-Castro terrorists, who hijacked a plane to Miami at knifepoint. ‘Even though the kidnapped pilot was brought back from Cuba to testify against the men,’ he wrote, ‘the defence simply told the jurors the man was lying, and the jury deliberated for less than an hour before acquitting the defendants.’ General Jose Guillermo Garcia has lived comfortably in Florida since the 1990s. He was head of El Salvador’s military during the 1980s when death squads with ties to the army murdered thousands of people. General Prosper Avril, the Haitian dictator, liked to display the bloodied victims of his torture on television. When he was overthrown, he was flown to Florida by the US Government. Thiounn Prasith, Pol Pot’s henchman and apologist at the United Nations, lives in New York. General Mansour Moharari, who ran the Shah of Iran’s notorious prisons, is wanted in Iran, but untroubled in the United States. Al-Qaeda’s training camps in Afghanistan were kindergartens compared with the world’s leading university of terrorism at Fort Benning in Georgia. Known until recently as the School of the Americas, it trained tyrants and some 60,000 Latin American special forces, paramilitaries and intelligence agents in the black arts of terrorism. In 1993, the UN Truth Commission on El Salvador named the army officers who had committed the worst atrocities of the civil war; two-thirds of them had been trained at Fort Benning. In Chile, the school’s graduates ran Pinochet’s secret police and three principal concentration camps. In 1996, the US government was forced to release copies of the school’s training manuals, which recommended blackmail, torture, execution and the arrest of witnesses’ relatives. This really makes me laugh. Absolute bloody hypocrisy. If you don’t like the facts, check them up. It’s no wonder there are so many anti-American supporters all over the world. The opinions you have seem to be structured around media representations of history. Well maybe you have (by now) come to the conclusion that what the mass media say, tends to be different to what independent media organizations say. This could be put down to a number of things, none of which I’m going to go into. The point is, ‘don’t believe what you read in the papers’, nothing at least that you read in the papers run by multinational media-moguls.
Here is a good exercise you can do to test the bias that occurs in newspapers (just in case you don’t believe me). Find two of the same stories that are printed in different newspapers, read them, compare them – just see how much bias there really is. And if you don’t take that as evidence for bias, this man couldn’t have put it better. A leader in his field of Western media, this man sure knows his stuff.
Professor Richard Falk Cornell University said western foreign policy, is propagated in the media ‘through a self righteous, one-way moral/legal screen [with] positive images of western values and innocence portrayed as threatened, validating a campaign of unrestricted violence’.
Well maybe he’s a mad professor, but he still knows a hell of a lot more about Western media culture than you do. Anyway, back to the point, U.S.’s supposed ‘helping’ of Iraq and Afghanistan:
As Hurin said, the U.S. has done nothing to help Iraq ever since the Brits invaded it in 1912. Afghanistan was not ‘helped’ by America, more used as a foothold in the oil markets of the Middle East. You see that’s why Putin and his Russian cronies won’t give up Chechnya – because it lies directly on the border of Afghanistan. (Afghanistan being one of the worlds biggest oil suppliers.) That’s why America ‘supported’ Afghanistan, that’s why they’ve invaded Iraq.
Here I’m not saying this is the only reason why America have attacked these ‘rogue states’, but it still plays a big part. The case of Libya and Britain shows us blatantly the intentions of Western governments. The agenda is, take the resources, such as oil. The minute Gaddafi gave up his WMD programme, he was no longer a terrorist. At the same time, however, Shell moved in to secure a billion $ oil deal and Britain’s largest weapons manufacturer BAE got huge contacts too. There are also 24 Scottish companies who have secured deals – these are the companies from the same country that Gaddafi’s cronies attacked (Lockerby bombing).
The message is clear; you are no longer a terrorist if you let foreign investors in. The evidence is everywhere, for example, Saudi Arabia (supposedly where the September 9/11 hi-jackers came from). Do we see an invasion? No, because there are numerous ties between America, the IMF and the World Bank. These terrorists are pro-American
I eagerly await your response…
P.S Belka95, i have just seen your response and will deal with it later. And no, your understanding of history makes me laugh. Prepare your self for reliable sources and not just the mindless regurgitation of the ideological pundits you so willingly follow.
Can I just say Belka95, I am going to demolish your argument (you must excuse me for being this blatant, usually I’m more I’m subtler, but for you I will make an exception.
You said:
“Saddam Hussein was given several billions of dollars in economic aid as part of his sanction, but yet we killed nearly half a million children?”
Wrong. If you had bother to read up on the history of the sanctions you would find the U.S. Government has given absolutely nothing to Iraq. Yep, that’s right, not one cent. The billions of dollars were given in exchange for oil. You see that’s what is known as the ‘oil for food’ program. Read up on it. The funny thing is: they didn’t just take the oil and give the humanitarian aid, no, “The United Nations Secretary-General Report” in October 2001, says the obstruction of $4billion of aid was the biggest cause of poverty, illness and premature deaths. Yes, they refused the country the aid that I had already bought from its oil reserves. And that’s not all.
Another study conducted by Paul Conlon, “United Nations Sanctions Management: A case study of the Iraq Sanctions Committee” carried from 1990 to 1994 concluded “that [the U.S. and U.K representatives for the sanctions committee] have frequently delayed and vetoed baby food, agricultural equipment, heart and cancer drugs, oxygen tents, X-ray machines, 16 heart and lung machines, a fleet of ambulances…” The list goes on and on. And if you want to buy the study, it’s made available by Transnational Publishers based in New York, which was released in 2000. (Check out pages 73 to 74)
You said:
“The UN put sanctions on Iraq to stop him from continuing building a war machine that he could threaten the world with.”
You’re gona love this: Do you want to know what Dennis Halliday said? Well he worked at the U.N for 34 years, until he quit at the rank of Assistant Secretary General. He said, and I quote “I had been instructed to implement a policy that satisfies the definition of genocide: a deliberate policy that has affectively killed well over a million individuals, children and adults. We all know that the regime, Saddam Hussein, is not paying the price for economic sanctions; on the contrary, he has been strengthened by them…”
He also added that “[the sanctions] have undermined their own charter, the Geneva Convention and the Declaration of Human Rights”. Wonderful, isn’t it? The truth is that sanctions do not affect dictators; they only strengthen them. The U.N knows this, they’ve conducted studies on it. Unfortunately I’ve misplaced a book denouncing sanctions otherwise I’d give you another source.
You said:
“Seems to me that the money was not going to feed the children.”
The sanctions committee calcualted that each person living in Iraq gets a hundered dollars a year to survive (this includes the maintaning of transport services, emergency services etc) Do you think the money they gave the country, which was only 2/3 of the total amount as the U.N. claimed ‘costs’, was sufficient to live on?
You said: “When the UN failed to uphold their sanctions, it was in essence, The UN who didnt stop the deaths of the children.”
Now this seems to be the root of your argument. You seem to believe the culpability lies within the U.N. You also seem to belive that it was the ‘U.N.’, not the governments of Britian and America – wrong. Even though the U.N. is seperate from the U.S./U.K. governements, the representatives of countries represent countries. Doh! Oh, and George Bush openly supported the sanctions as did his ambassador, Madleine Albright!
(By the way, when exactly did the U.N. stop the sanctions? Because that’s what you were implying. The sanctions have never been stopped.) I’ll admit you are right the U.N. was the organsation to blame, but the only people supporting the sanctions are the British and, primarily, the American Governments. It’s convenient that you failed to mention the fact the George Bush Senior (one of your sacred Republicans) was the one who started sanctioning Iraq after the first Gulf War.
You also said:
“You criticize bush for his war, but you obviously fail to remember Clinton’s near war with Saddam in 1998.”
Why are you saying this? I am not a democrat and even if I was it doesn’t automatically mean I would support anyone brandishing that name. (That would be the defintion of an idiot – you’re getting confused.) I think both parties are equally corrupt. I hate Clinton as much as I hate Bush.
You said:
“If he would have taken the oppurtunity to declare a war on terrorism, Im sure 9/11 would not have happened.”
Well maybe if Bush had been more observant, 9/11 may have never happened.
Now you go into a religious justification for a war, which, in itself, is absolutely ridiculous. Do you realise people such as Osama Bin Laden, Hitler, Ariel Sharon (and all his predecessors) have used religion to justify wars? Do you know that faith is by no means a justification for war? Do you know how many contrdictions the Bible actually has? The point is: Christianity is far from perfect Belk, so don’t try and go on a morale crusade using it as a premise.
You said:
“Jesus was the only perfect man to walk the Earth and is the only man who will ever be perfect.”
Now I’m not a religious man, but that doesn’t make me a bad man. So maybe Jesus was a ‘perfect’ man, maybe he wasn’t. If he was was his body perfect? Seems it must be. So tell me, how long are perfect fingers? I know mine are 3.5 inches but is that perfect? Maybe they’re too fat, or too skiny, beats me, I’d really like to know the perfect finger. Get back to me on that one and I’ll consult my doctor in order to get my fingers ‘perfected’!
I await your response. And remember, also support the dying people of Iraq as well as the troops!
It seems Belka95 that you are a very religious man. Where do you stand on womans rights, gay marrige, and contaception? It would be interesting to know where Republicans get thier half-witted policies from.
I was considering the other day, when i was walking down the street, whether or not to punch someone spontaneously! When i got arrested i’d claim it was a pre-emptive strike and that i was hitting him before he hit me! Surely, if i used Bush, it would hold up in an international court of law!
Belka95 and Read the facts:
You said:
“The gas attack on the Kurdish village…..that was cold-blooded and intended murder of men, women, and children”-which was financed by the American Government
You said:
“Now as for the U.S. giving Iraq wmd’s for the Irag/Iran issue, I can’t say I’ve ever heard of that, I’ll assume for the sake of argument that it came from a reliable sorce, if you want to give me a link to that as well I’d be appreciative…”- Well here’s your evidence, thoguh I havent checked if you can find it on the interent yet.
“The Guardian” on May 2 and 8, 1992, as well as “The U.S. General Accounting Office, IRAQ: US Military Items Exported or Transferred to Iraq in the 1980s”, on February 1994, concluded that “Bush and his advisors financed, equipped, and soccoured the monster[Saddam Hussein] the later set out to slay, and no they were burying the evidnece.” That was qouted off Hnery Gonzalez , chairman of the House of Representatives Banking Committee.
You said:
“but the U.S. also gave weapons to Afghanastan during the russian occupations by the spetznaz.”
I know I claimed the same thing in a previous argument; I, as well as you, was wrong. On July 3, 1979, unknown to Congress and the American public, President Carter authorised a $500million covert action programme in support of the tribes known as the ‘mujaheddin’. The aim was to overthrow Afghanistan’s first secular progressive government. This had nothing to do with the Soviet invasion 6 months later. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter’s National Security advisor, claimed in an interview published in “Le Nouvel Obsevateur”(A French magazine) in January 1998, “According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the mujaheddin began during 1980, that is after the Soviet Army invaded Afganistan … But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise.”
There you have it: another example of histroy distorted to benefit those in power. Well if you guys used a source other than Larry King Live, you may sound more convincing. But until then, peace and prosperity.
I’ve just seen there are lots of typing errors in the above argument. If you don’t understand what i’m trying to say, i’ll clear it up with you if you mention it.
Bill I was just putting up a request for information, why do you feel the need to insult someone like that assuming that I am dumb enough to consult only one source before proceeding into an argument blindly. Thats just insulting. Now as to your comments about Jesus being perfect and about the size of the perfect finger. If you are going to start arguments about petty crap thats fine, but don’t go into religion. Your right Jesus was perfect, does that make you bad, no, you determine that one my friend. Was his body perfect, no, he was the son of God in HUMAN form. He was perfect in the eyes of God because of his sinless nature, his body was still prone to the same pains that man had. Now your choice in religion, or possibly lack there of, isn’t really a concern of mine, but if you plan on being taken seriously about any arguement you post please for future reference, don’t go picking fights about petty crap, keep to the subject at hand. By the way, the reason its called faith is because no one knows for sure you can only put your faith in it, think about that one for awhile.
I really do not have a great deal of time at the moment, and I will make an attempt to do post a longer message tomorrow. Bill it seems to me that you are an unpatriotic bastard. Im sorry but that is how you seem. You do not support any government of the United States and you dont support US wars. Let me give you a little information: Wars are what create, build, and define societies. Fortunately America has had extremely good success in our armed conflicts and that is what makes us the best country on Earth. We also take care for the innocent and we kill as very few as possible civilians. We are not a brutal society that goes out on a killing rampage like half the world’s dictators. When those men do such things, we respond to police the situation. Just like regular society, the world also needs police. Sometimes I think of the UN as that fat cop with a doughnut that cant get off his ass to do his job. America is that in-shape cop that does an effective job. Now you cant tell me you dont like police. If you dont then you really do have mush up there for your brains. The fact is that America fights for its own citizens as well as the citizens of other nations. You can find this policy in the tablet that Lady Liberty holds. “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free”. The people of Iraq 2 years ago were not able to breathe free. They now are. Americans, had it not been for the fierce battles we fought so ever bravely, would not be a free people. But we are. It was defined by war, which is a terrible thing. But it is also usually for the best in the long run.
Sorry Read the facts, Belka95, but i get emotional when such matters are raised. In the future I will endevour to not sound as offensive. I will respond to all ‘politically’ motivated arguments from now on.
P.S.
Just becuase i dont support my country 100% that doesnt make me unpatriotic. As my right honorable friend put it
“an unquestioning worship of the administration is now “Patriotism.” Fuck that . A real patriot is one who will question the workings of the government, and strive for its improvement. Indifference is the real anti-patriotism.”
Thankyou Hurin for that remark, it was much needed. I will respond soon enough.
P.SS
I live in Britian, not America but you’d be pleased to know that i am equally ‘unpatriotic’ about the dealings of my own country!
Belka95
“Wars are what create, build, and define societies.”
So it is ok to wage war on another society if it benefits (or creates) yours? I have to say that is what you are implying.
Wars do not create, they destroy. The modern day stategy for waging war relies on, firstly, bombing the country’s basic infastructure, which includes water systems, hospitals, transport routes and so on. Secondly, annhilating any form of stategic point (and if they cant destroy them completely – as was the case in Baghdad, Kirkuit etc, they control them). Thirdly, sending in ground troops with the help of satellite tracking, ariel bombardment, tanks, helicopters etc, in order to control the entire country with the smallest effort.
With the case of the Coalition versus Iraq, the opposition had little more than tanks. And because Britian and America had been bombing Iraq for the past ten years, in whats known as the ‘no fly zone’, the infastructure of Iraq was practically demolished. As the Secretary-General of the U.N, Martti Ahtisaari, put it “Iraq has for some time been relegated to a pre-industrial age but with all the disabilities of post-indusrial dependancy on an intensive use of energy and technology”. That was quoted off The New York Times, June 3, 1991 if you want to check it out.
Surely, this country was no match for the Coalition? I’m not saying countries who wage war on each other should be of equal military strength, but there are other ways to solving matters such as Iraq, not all of them resulting in war. Now I know I’ll probably attract a stream of criticisms from what I have just said but the weapons inspectors should not have been the final straw for Iraq. Ultimately, this would have benefitted the people – innocent men, women and children – who have had no say in this conflict and yet are the ones most affected. (The common man is the one most affected byt wars, not the rich man.)
Furthermore, increasingly I see the argument arise that “if we [The Coalition] hadn’t attacked Iraq, Saddam Hussien would still be at large and that Iraq is also a better place now than it was beforehand”.
There are numerous problems with this argument. First and foremost, this completely undermines the initial premise of the war - and that was weapons of mass destruction. I’ll try and explain it with an anology:
A police raid has gone wrong, and raided the wrong house but only to find this house has more drugs than the original house had. The police then justify the ILLEGAL raid by claiming we’ve found drugs, disregarding the fundamenatal principle of the law itself.
Although the analogy is vaguely representative of the case for the Iraq war, this is how the governments seem to be behaving now they found there where no WMD.
Even so, there remain other fundamental flaws to this argument that are rarely mentioned. The pople who usually bring this up fail to mention:
1) Saddam was supported by the West - as I have mentioned before.
2) The West has had the chance to remove him at any given time in his presedency. Primarily they had the chance to remove him during the second Gulf war but didn’t because they realised that stability, in the area that produces the worlds highest grade oil, may result in disregard for Western interests. To be more specific, a democratically elected government by the Iraqi people would almost certainly result in the oil being sold to countries other than America. This is partly why Bush Senior bailed out and partly why Bush junior has secured the contracts for Halliburton so the Iraqi people have no choice in where their oil goes. By doing this, it seems Iraq has a ‘democratically’ elected government while at the same time, America gets the oil. In addition, there are all sorts of flaws with the preposed Iraqi government. None of these I want to go into because I haven’t got the tenacity.
3) At the present, all evidence points to the fact that Iraq is now a worse off place to live (with 80% of the country without elecrticity and running water, it seems this situation doesn’t match the brutality of Saddam’s regime). And because there is also no way of sending in the construction teams (because of the daily barrage of bombs) in order to repair the cities, the American Army is in a pickle! On one hand, ‘terrorists’ are trying to get rid of the Coalition because the country is, and has been, in turmoil and on the other, the government cant get rid of the ‘turmoil’ until the country is safe! It really beats me how they’ll get out of this one… catch 22 comes to mind!
To end this huge response I would like to say my computer is going mad so don’t critisize me on the numerous spelling, puncuation and grammar errors. Moreover, I would rather like to raise other issues in your last post but, as you can see, it takes time. (This response was all over one sentence!) Luckily for me I have spare time as I’m on half term at the moment, so i shall endevour to respond some time in the near future…
I respectfully await your response.
Bill, I have to say I do respect your points of view, but I beg to differ on some issues. First, with the patriotism issue. You are right that a true patriot questions his government and strives for it to be better, but I also believe that one who goes on the streets and protests against something the country is doing is wrong. Burning the glag for example is wrong, because it is of the country you live in, and that flag also represents what will be flown when you are still protected. I believe that government needs to be checked, but I also find it horrible when troops are deployed to take to the streets and protest what they are doing. How do you think they feel? Especially when most soldiers believe highly in their mission. Now I dont think you are like this, but the people who really piss me off are some of the Hollywood movie stars who will even venture to call our soldiers murderers. They dont realize those young men who are out there putting their life on the line are fighting for American, British, and freedom for all the other countries in the world. That is why I can be sensitive on the patriot issue. Also, just so you may better understand my issue on patriotism, my family has had a long military history. We have lost several lives to conflicts of the past, and they gave their life to help make America a better place. That is why I strongly support my government and almost always find myself on the conservative side. But being on the conservative side does not mean I am a racist, because I am not. I hate the KKK with a passion and I hate any type of discrimination. But basically I will sum myself up as a conservative patriot who would put his life on the line to defend this great nation. Now to the point that wars are what create and build societies. I probably should have made it more clear and said that not all wars create societies, ex. WW2. However, I also find myself looking especially to the American Revolution. That was a war that launched the creation of one of the greatest nations on Earth. It took hard battles to win, but the brave thirteen colonies won independence from Great Britain with the help of the French. Also I think of the civil war. Before that war, America was in many ways, seperated. The slavery issue was hindering progress of uniting the country, and it eventually led to war. The outcome is something that any American with a right mind is happy about. We no longer have slaves and I dont quite dare to say we dont have discrimination because some rednecks as I would put it, have to be bigots and racists. Winston Churchill himself said that the American Civil War is what defined America as a nation and gave us our charachter. But the current issue is a war in Iraq. I try to be an optimist and although no WMDs were found, I see this as a great oppurtunity for the Iraqi people as well as the world. I still believe there were WMDs and he successfully sent them to Syria, but the problem is we will never know the truth. But right now, Iraq is a mess. It is a mess because building a new and better country means tearing down the old andthat creates a mess. Maybe it will be a few years before the attacks stop and the insurgents finally realize they will lose, but when that day comes and we are able to move forward and set up a progressive and stable government, the future for all Iraqi children just got alot sunnier. Just as the French helped America gain independence, in the future, America will be talked about in Iraqi classrooms as the nation that helped Iraq become a better country. I criticize myself right now for focusing too much on America though, yes, we did alot, but so did Great Britain (Our truest ally) and Spain and all the other countries of the coalition. Although at this moment the future looks a little bleak, if we all just unite behind our governments and say “I supported the war (Or I didnt support the war) but lets go ahead and get the job done right. Lets set up the new Iraqi government and make the world a better place”. It may be hard to see, but this is why I feel wars create and define societies.
I totally agree with most of what you have said. I feel the troops should never be criticized as it is their job to kill, if they don’t they can go to military prison – not exactly your ideal place! Anyone who criticizes the troops is either totally misguided or uninformed. Ground soldiers are ordered by their superiors to attack certain places and carry out certain missions. The soldiers who command them then get told by someone else what to do. The bureaucratic system is so large that criticizing anyone but those in high positions is rather stupid.
What I do feel, however, is that the politicians and elite military generals, who affectively command the troops, should be trialed for crimes against humanity if they are proven to commit war crimes against humanity. These men, namely Dick Cheney, are seldom criticized but yet they are the ones who put the lives of the majority of the troops at risk. I think that the army is often used as a scapegoat for wars but people who mention this fail to mention the fact that the majority of all wars are started by politicians. It is also convenient that these politicians tend to have diplomatic immunity, affectively, enabling them to get away with murder!
Moving on, I was reading an extract from a man who describes the hypocrisy of the Coalitions efforts to dismantle the ‘Axis of Evil’. By all means, the “Axis of Evil” is a farce. On one hand, the world’s rich nations want to eliminate terrorism but on the other, there are terrorists living legally in all the world’s richest nations. George Monibiot said:
Given that all the evidence linking the school [Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, or Whisc (the school I mentioned the other day)] to continuing atrocities in Latin America is rather stronger than the evidence linking al-Qa’ida training camps to the attack on New York what should we do about the ‘evil-doers’ in Fort Benning, Georgia?
Surely, it makes sense to root out the evil-doers at home before going and finding them elsewhere; these are the terrorists that are most likely to attack Western countries as they are, literally, under our noses. Of course, the evil-doers in this case, are pro American, unlike the evil-doers in Iraq. Another example of hypocrisy in the ‘Axis of Evil’ is Saudi Arabia and Egypt – home to all of the September 11 hijackers – we do not see an invasion there. Why? I think I’ve explained enough.
Without doubt, all these misrepresentations have to be down to something, because if the majority of the American public knew there were terrorists living on their doorstep, they would certainly extradite them. This brings me onto the media. The media plays a huge role in silencing all sorts of things during wars. For example, representations of the first Gulf war: the mass graves were paraded throughout the western media during the invasion of Iraq, documented as “the results of Saddam’s brutality”. This is entirely true. But, at the same time, the reports fail to mention that American armored bulldozers were deployed to bury dead and alive Iraqi soldiers in trenches (or mass graves) two days before the ceasefire. Nothing was mentioned in the media until 6 months later when New York Newsday on September 12, 1991, disclosed that three brigades of the US First Mechanized Infantry Division were deployed to bury thousands of Iraqi soldiers – some still alive – in over 70 miles of trenches. A brigade commander, Colonel Anthony Moreno, said “For all I know, we could have killed thousands”. This is never, or rarely, mentioned in the mainstream media.
I respect your view that protesting during, or in the run up to, wars must do excessive harm to the troop’s morale. But at the same time I feel that it should be someone’s right to voice their opinion as long as they are not harming anyone in the process. Definitely, this is a fine line of whether or not protesting is harming the troops as there may be an affect on soldiers if they feel they have no support at home as well as having to deal with conflict while abroad.
I feel that we are getting on well now but I have to bring up one thing you said in your previous argument. I’m doing this not for the sake of argument but more that I would like to rectify certain matters revolving around American conflicts. I feel that I may also be coming across as one-sided with all these statistics that are critical of the American Government and none of my own government. This is not in my intentions, as I am equally critical of my own government. I will now try to include an equal amount of anti-British statistics in the future! But having said that, it is very hard to incorporate British involvement, when most of the matters raised are predominantly American orientated.
Anyway, you said: Fortunately America has had extremely good success in our armed conflicts and that is what makes us the best country on Earth. We also take care for the innocent and we kill as very few as possible civilians.
As you have done with me, I beg to differ on this matter. For example, in the first Gulf War, 7% of the weapons used in Desert Storm were ‘smart’ (I am refering to the famed smart bombs). 77% of the bombs dropped on Kuwait and Iraq – the equivalent of seven Hiroshimas – missed their targets completely and many landed on populated areas. The launch sites of the Iraq’s Scud missiles were said to be ‘knocked out’, not one was destroyed. This information comes from the ‘International Herald Tribune’, February 23-24, as well as my new favorite newspaper ‘The New York Times’, January 15, 1992.
What this is meant to show is the supposed ‘accuracy’ of military bombing in the first Gulf War - and the civilian casualties as a result of the bombing. In fact, The Medical Education Trust in London published a comprehensive report on the casualties of the Iraq war. They concluded that up to a quarter of a million Iraqi men, woman and children were killed as a result of the war. General Schwarzkopf said 100,000 of them were soldiers.
I expect to hear more from you in the future…
Just some food for thought, the following quote appeared in a Liberal webzine known as Counterpunch.org in the last week or so:
The President, whose “bring ‘em on” invitation to Al Qaeda summoned Bin Laden’s evil network to Iraq, has been eminently successful in promoting the “terror” facet of the War on T, and is, of course, endorsed for re-election by that noble aggregation—in a recent communique published by a Dubai daily, the Abu Hafs Masri brigades, said to be tight with Osama, called for four more years because “Bush’s stupidity and religious fanaticism” will benefit Islamic interests. (http://www.counterpunch.org/ross03272004.html, Written by John Ross)
This is exactly the point I was trying to get across. It is well known that hardline responses only contribute to the radical agenda. In Spain recently Joseph Aznar suffered a suprise loss in the wake of a terrorist attack, and many U.S. journalists accused the Spanish people of “appeasing” terrorists. I actually think Al-Queda may have gotten the opposite result that they were hoping for, because really what is better for a terrorist than prolonged war and misery? These things cause the populace to become desperate and bitter and what sort of people would you say are more likely to loin up with Al Queda, those who are prosperous and have lives that they can value, or those whose dismal lives are in tatters and can see no better way out than one that can provide them revenge along with the death that they seek? The war on Iraq is a boon to Terrorists, who now have a new front to fight the U.S., more war ravaged civilians to draw on for membership and all they have to do to win Iraq over is to continue creating disorder. This is not to say that I beleive we cannot leave Iraq better than it was under saddam, but it is far from a trivial matter, especially considering the way support from our allies is waning. Furthermore Bush is has shown himself to be unimaginative in his policies at the very best, we can see it in the way he takes undelicate and absolutist stances in foriegn policies. Possible threats to a more intelligent man are “axis of evil” to Bush. I myself am highly skeptical that such a man can be trusted with such a difficult and high stakes task as this. Whether or not our wars define us is a point both moot and philisophical .
If we dont stop letting our leaders engage in Irrational wars with faulty backing, these campeigns threaten to define us as a once great nation reduced to rubble by the discontents of our arrogant and self-interested foreign policy.
P.S. I forget wheter it was read the facts or Belka, but someone questioned my assertion about U.S. involvement during the Iraq-Iran war. For validation of this point please see Bill’s post of Feb.20 which provides a short history of U.S. involvment in that Region, and which is both thorough and heavily sited (he provides 24 sources). You may find some things that supprise you.
Thankyou Hurin for another succinct argument. I am in the proccess of surfing the site you mentioned though i have been on there before. As promised I found some ‘anti-British’ information on the net. It describes Prime Minister Blair’s relationship with arms dealers. As we all know, Britain is now the largest weapons seller to Africa as well as being the 2nd largest manufacturer in the world. Britain sells weapons to countries with some of the most appalling human rights records in the world. It seems governments are there to serve big business and not help people as I was brought up to believe. (This article was written a couple of years ago; though it is dated, the information remains correct)
“With nuclear powers India and Pakistan on the edge of war, the role of the Blair government in fuelling the conflict has been critical.
In the year 2000, the Government approved nearly 700 export licenses for weapons and military equipment to both countries. These had a total value of £64million. India, which gets the great majority of British weapons, is building under license Jaguar bombers that are capable of delivering nuclear weapons. In January, as the two countries prepared for war, Tony Blair arrived in the subcontinent on what was called a “peace mission.” In fact, as the Indian press revealed, he discussed the opposite of peace - a £1billion deal to sell India 60 Hawk fighter-bombers made by British Aerospace. “The issue of India acquiring the Hawks,” reported the periodical Outlook India, “was raised by Prime Minister Blair with Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee, defence minister George Fernandes said today.”
Three weeks later, the British High Commission in New Delhi threw a party for a group of British arms salesmen in town for a major weapons fair called Defexpo, whose organizers made no secret of their aim to exploit the “recent developments taking place in the south-east Asia region” - in other words, the conflicts in Kashmir and Afghanistan.
So keen has the Blair government been to exploit this opportunity of war that a British official has the full-time assignment, in New Delhi, of “defense supply”. He works with the Defense Export Sales Organization (DESO) in London, an arm of the Ministry of Defense, whose sole aim is to sell weapons to foreign armies. A secret list of 22 “highly valuable priority markets” targeted for British arms sales has India and Pakistan near the top. British missiles, tanks, artillery, howitzers, anti-aircraft guns, small arms and ammunition are all available on buy-now-pay-later terms.” But the prize is the 60 Hawk fighter-bombers, coyly described as “trainers”. Trade and Industry Secretary Patricia Hewitt was yesterday reported to have “banned” this deal. It has not been banned; the delivery date has been simply put back - which was the tactic the Blair government used in delaying the shipment of Hawks to Indonesia when the dictatorship in that country was attempting to annihilate East Timor.
INDIA and Pakistan have millions of impoverished people without basic services. According to the Campaign Against the Arms Trade, the price of one Hawk bomber is roughly the amount needed to provide 1.5million people with fresh water for life. Arming both sides is, of course, as British as pith helmets. In the horrendous war between Iraq and Iran in the 1980s, Britain did just that in company with other Western countries. At least a million people were killed.
The usual hypocrisy and double standards are even more spectacular under this government. Soon after New Labour came to power in 1997, the then Foreign Secretary Robin Cook announced an “ethical dimension” to foreign policy. He said that the Government “will not issue an (arms) export licence if there is a clearly identifiable risk that the intended recipient would use the proposed export aggressively against another country” or if there was a threat to “regional stability”.
He might have been talking about India and Pakistan, whose long-running dispute over Kashmir is, according to Cook’s successor Jack Straw, “potentially more dangerous than the crisis in the Middle East”.”
And there you have: an example of big business having an increasingly worrying amount of influence on governments. Alas, I do not understand the political gene! Though this isn’t nearly enough information as I have supplied on America, there should be more to come in the future. There are more than enough atrocities to go round!
Moving on, when I said in a previous post about links between America and Saudi business, I forgot to mention there is a book out in the states – which, unfortunately, has been banned over here – that describes the links between the Bush family and one Saudi millionaire. Obviously, I cannot read it, but if someone does happen to read the book, tell me what it is like, I would like to know!
Its called “House of Bush House of Saud” and its author is Craig Unger.
I hate George w. i’m an idiot hillbilly A$$ Bush. he is a low educated fool. Vote Kerry!!!
We need to get rid of this fool, I hope he is not re-elected. Thanks for your time. I like your site.
love
peace
TC
To anyone who is interested in hearing more about Guantanimo bay than the Mainstream media is willing to cover, here is a story Published on Counterpunch.org on April 1, 2004 Which I am a posting under to protection of the fair usage doctrine.
Inside America’s Concentration Camp Tortured at Guantanamo Bay By NICOLE COLSON
Jamal al-Harith made the mistake of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. And for that, the last two years of his life have been one long nightmare. The 37-year-old British Web site designer went to Pakistan in October 2001 to study Muslim culture.
Jamal says that on his way to Turkey, he mistakenly entered Afghanistan. Once there, he was arrested as a suspected spy and turned over to U.S. authorities. Then the real horror began. Jamal was transported to Camp X-Ray—and later Camp Delta—the notorious U.S. prisons located at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay.
But after two years of detention and virtually no contact with the outside world, the U.S. finally admitted that Jamal wasn’t one of the “most dangerous, best-trained, vicious killers on the face of the earth,” as U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld once labeled the prisoners at Camp X-Ray.
Last month, Jamal and four other British nationals were released. Jamal’s recounting of life inside the camp became further proof that Washington’s brand of “justice” is anything but. In an interview with the Britain’s Mirror newspaper, Jamal described the horrific conditions and physical and mental torture that inmates were forced to endure on a daily basis.
Rice and beans were the usual diet, and the water was “filthy,” he said. “In Camp X-Ray, it was yellow and in Delta, it was black—the color of Coca-Cola. We had it piped through with a tap in each ‘cage,’ but they would often turn the water off as punishment…
“The food was terrible as well, up to 10 years out of date. They would open a hatch and shove it through a section at a time. Recreation meant your legs were untied, and you walked up and down a strip of gravel. In Camp X-Ray, you only got five minutes, but in Delta you walked for around 15 minutes.”
During lengthy interrogation, inmates would be attached—like animals—to a metal ring on the floor. “Sometimes,” Jamal said, “you would be chained up on the floor with your hands and feet actually bound together. One of my friends told me he was kept like that for 15 hours once.”
Inmates who resisted—in whatever form—found themselves subject to worse torture, according to Jamal and others. “You would be punished for anything—for having six packets of salt in your cell rather than five, for hanging your towel through the cage if it wasn’t wet, even for having your spoon and things lined up in the wrong order,” Jamal said in his Mirror interview.
As punishment, he says, a group of guards dressed in full riot gear known as the “Extreme Reaction Force” would beat uncooperative inmates—who were then paraded in front of other prisoners’ cells as a warning. “The whole point of Guantanamo was to get to you psychologically,” Jamal commented. “The beatings were not as nearly as bad as the psychological torture. Bruises heal after a week, but the other stuff stays with you. They would play tricks on people by denying them things—you might be the only person on your block who didn’t get any bread.”
Prisoners, according to Jamal, were told they had no rights. “They actually said that—‘you have no rights here.’ After a while, we stopped asking for human rights—we wanted animal rights.
“In Camp X-Ray, my cage was right next to a kennel housing an Alsatian dog. He had a wooden house with air conditioning and green grass to exercise on. I said to the guards, ‘I want his rights,’ and they replied, ‘That dog is member of the U.S. army.’”
Following Jamal and other prisoner’s allegations of abuse, the U.S. embassy in London took the disgusting step of releasing detailed allegations about them to the British press. Washington claimed that Jamal and the other four released British detainees had received weapons training and been caught with Taliban forces in Afghanistan.
If that was really the case, the U.S. wouldn’t have released them. And British authorities—despite their kowtowing to Washington—have concluded that the men did nothing wrong.
Following the allegations from Jamal and other prisoners, Secretary of State Colin Powell scoffed: “We do not abuse people in our care. Guantanamo Bay is not a resort, but at the same time, we do not abuse individuals.” Maybe Powell can explain, then, why at the same time that Jamal and the other British prisoners were telling their stories to the press, a group of 23 newly released Afghan and Pakistani prisoners were recounting similar stories of torture at the hands of the U.S.
Aziz Khan, a 45-year-old father of 10, said he was taken from Paktia Province more than two years ago because he had four Kalashnikov rifles in his home. At Guantanamo, he was sometimes kept in chains and sometimes “put in a place like a cage for a bird.” “They had very bad treatment toward us,” he told the New York Times. “Americans are very cruel. They want to govern the world.”
“The American inspectors behaved very badly—they were mentally torturing us,” Mohammed, a 27-year-old who was among those released, told Agence France Presse. As for the more than 600 prisoners left in cages in the U.S. gulag? “They are all innocent people just like me,” Mohammed said. “If I was a Taliban and al-Qaeda why did they release me? The others still in jail are just like me.”
But if the Bush administration has its way, that’s exactly where many of them will stay. That’s because Washington still refuses to grant the inmates status as prisoners of war, which would entitle them to basic rights under the Geneva Convention.
Instead, “All detainees are treated humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in accordance with the principles of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949,” Lt. Cmdr. Barbara Burfeind, a Pentagon spokeswoman, told the New York Times. In other words: Washington gets to decide which prisoners have rights—and if and when they get to exercise them.
Ultimately, it took an international outcry from human rights groups before the U.S. finally agreed in late January to release the youngest of its Guantanamo. prisoners—three children between the ages of 13 and 15. They were kept at the prison camp for more than a year. The U.S. still has an undisclosed number of children between the ages of 16 and 18 at the camps.
The Bush administration says it is waging a “war on terror.” But the degrading treatment of prisoners at its Guantanamo gulag show that this is a war of terror. We need to organize to put an end to this outrage.
“Drive-by act of legal violence”
SEVENTY-SIX days in a military brig and a name and career dragged through the mud. But the best “apology” that the U.S. government can offer to Capt. James (Yousef) Yee is “never mind.” Yee is the Muslim chaplain who ministered to prisoners at the U.S. prison camp in Guantanamo Bay and who was arrested last September on allegations of spying, mutiny, sedition, aiding the enemy and mishandling classified information.
For more than two months, Yee was jailed in a maximum-security Navy lockup in Jacksonville, Fla., where he was only let outside his cell in shackles for just one hour each day. Yet last week, the government dropped all of the criminal charges against Yee.
They won’t, of course, admit that it’s because Yee is innocent. Instead, the Army said it could not proceed because of “national security concerns that would arise from the release of the evidence” against him. What garbage! If Yee was a “spy” aiding al-Qaeda terrorists, as the government initially claimed, they would have raked him over the coals for years to come.
Instead, as an additional slap in the face, a military hearing found him guilty of committing adultery and storing pornographic images on a government computer. “This officer is the victim of an incredible drive-by act of legal violence,” Eugene Fidell, Yee’s lawyer, told Reuters. (end of article)
The real question that needs asking, is why in the hell I have to go to a leftist, internet news source to hear any sort of disscussion on Guantanimo bay or the prisoners therein. If the Mainstream media was really unbiased and even handed, they would covering such things , and the outrage they could fuel would end such dispicable practices. I am forced to assume that this is a well researched article, however that does not need to be the case either, Iff CNN wanted to the could round up a bunch of people who were at these camps and interview them before the camera. By the way, Josef Padilla who I mentioned earlier was in one of these installations IS an american citizen and has been there around 2 years. This can happen to anyone, so the argument I have heard from conservatives that only americans should be given the protections granted americans by the constitution is null and void (not that an argument that bigoted would really hold water anyway) but the point is this could happen to YOU, and we have Mr. Bush and his thugs to blame for it. P.S. Bill in response to your gratitude for my last argument, it is my pleasure, and I always enjoy reading your posts as well.
The article you have posted is interesting; here’s something I found on Blair from the same source. You may have already read it but I’ll post a section of it anyway to try and expose Blair for the liar he is. If you want the full article go to: http://www.counterpunch.org/chuckman05192003.html
“Blair knows perfectly well that these recently-discovered dead go back many years to uprisings in Iraq after the first Gulf war. The graves can be no surprise since virtually every detail of the uprisings was known to British and American governments. The CIA had many informers, both inside Iraq and as refugees, it had genuine information from spy satellites and high-flying aircraft, it had telephone and Internet interceptions, and it had information from Mossad, people who keep a very close watch on that neighborhood. This information would have kept the two governments about as well informed as Hussein himself.
For some reason, I don’t recall any great outrage expressed at the time. I don’t recall the British or American governments doing anything, or even threatening to do anything, at the time. Could that possibly be because the uprisings in Iraq were actively encouraged from outside? The United States did this knowing full well that it had no intention of helping those it incited to revolt, and it did this knowing the dreadful price that would be exacted by Hussein for the rebels’ almost-certain failure.
In other words, just to keep unrest and turmoil going for Hussein, the United States, and its loyal ally, Britain, deliberately helped send those thousands to certain death. Now, years later, Blair and Bush want to use their poor broken remains as evidence for different claims. Hypocrisy and immorality simply do not come on uglier terms.
Yet again, another example of hypocrisy. The list goes on and on and on and on…
Just a reminder to Belka, Read the Facts, or whoever If you have any factual arguments to try to rebuke these attacks I would love to hear them, And though I cant speak for him myself, I have the suspicion that Bill would too.
I am only 14 years old, and already I have found it quite obvious why the United States is doomed under the rule of Bush. Although I do not mock religion, I find it pathetic that any sort of “noble” president has chosen to dangle the future of the United States from his trust in Christianity. Personally, I think he is a selfish piece of crap who needs to understand the needs of middle-class citizens in this country -people who have been sent to war in Iraq or denied the right to marry because of their sexuality- and to recognize that not everyone is a Christian, heterosexual, white who has has been given everything they desire due to having been born the son of another president.
RGlennaW I respect you. You are a brave 14 year old girl to be involved in politics. Most teens dont care. Email me and we can talk.
RGlennaW
Stay away from Chewy, you don’t know where he’s been! If you do meet up with him, tell your parents! (The word peadophile springs to mind)
Hurin
You’re damn straight I would like to hear an argument that rebuts yours or mine; you see, then we can knock it down!
I’ve been away at a wedding; hence I haven’t posted anything for a few days. I’ve just arrived back, expecting a thousand posts all criticizing me but I haven’t had one
It’s such a shame because I’ve been specially preparing some info on the first Gulf war ready to jump on any Republican claiming that American wars are ‘virtually casualty free’. Since no one has blessed me with such an opportunity, I have been reduced to the level of this:
“Calling all republicans, calling ALL republicans. I would like to hear all your arguments, all at once, including every reason why GWB should stay and why the occupation of Iraq is just. You can also include factual reasons – and not purely emotional driven accusations - why my position is wrong and thus why yours is right.”
Well there you have it, I’ve done it. (Unfortunately this won’t result in you or me writing much as the anti-war arguments are all posted above and all of them seem to have affectively ‘destroyed’ the opposition.) Ah well life does go on…
This is an article illustrating how Australia are following the trend of most other Western Governments by demolishing the rights of asylum seekers and ignoring Human Rights, Geneva Convention etc.
Lombrum Detention Centre on Manus Island in Papua New Guinea, 2004: Predestined to refugee status by the political circumstances of his birth in Kuwait to a Palestinian father and an Egyptian mother, 25 year old Aladdin Sisalem (Weblog) now sits in solitary confinement on an island that costs the Australian Government almost as much in bad public relations as it does in money (Keeping the centre open for him is costing Australian taxpayers Aus$23,000 a day). The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) granted Sisalem refugee status. But Australian Minister for Immigration, Amanda Vanstone, has ‘justified’ the Government’s action by stating that Sisalem did not ask for the proper form by name although he repeatedly asked for protection and asylum in Australia, when in the Australian Migration Zone. Mandatory, indefinite Detention by the Australian Government has been called a Crime Against Humanity by respected barrister Julian Burnside (full speech & legal argument).
If you want the article with all the links go to
http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml
“Reverend Lovejoy” —
While Chewey’s invitation for RGlennaW to e-mail him might raise some eyebrows, I will not stand for comments such as yours on my website. I don’t mind at all if all of you continue your political discussions here — in fact, I’ve been rather enjoying watching all of it go back and forth. However, unwarranted personal attacks such as that are not wanted, not appreciated, and will result in your being banned from commenting here in the future.
Consider this your first and only warning. The commenting system on this site records both your e-mail address and the IP address of the computer you post from (as it does for anyone else who posts here), so it is very easy for me to track who is saying what, even when they use different screen names for their posts. No further comments such as yours will be tolerated.
So far, the majority of this discussion has proceeded remarkably well, given the often wildly disparate views of the people involved. I hope that from this point on, that level of maturity can be maintained.
About this whole “pedophile” buisness, while personally my eye brows were raised by that comment, it was not for the same reason. I figured chewy was probably a neo-con seeking to “correct” the informed opinion of an impressionable mind with a lot of propaganda. My question to Chewy is this: what exactly is it that you have to say to RglennaW that you cant tell her on this site where all of us can partake in the discussion? One final note on this subject, though I do not intend to speculate on Reverend Lovejoys accusations (an invitation to become an e-penpal or whatever just doesnt seem that sinister to me, and there is no indication whatsoever as to chewys intent) I did want to indicate that I echo his advice to RglennaW to either take a friend or tell parents if you actually meet up with chewy in the near future. I say this not because I seek to assasinate chewy’s character, but because I have had friends who have been snared by people who seemed harmless, but were in fact pedophiles. I would like to see this kind of scenario avoided, as those friends of mine were left emotionally devestated at a young age and live with scars that might seem unimaginable to many of us. That having been said I intend to move on with this discussion and make no further comments on this subject. I would like to welcome chewy to the debate however if he has a viewpoint he would like to share with the group at large.
Speaking of the Occupation in Iraq, I find the recent news that theer is now an Active faction of Shiite muslims engaging coalition troops very troubling. The shiites are the majority groupe in Iraq, and I might add, the same people who were supposed to be liberated by the U.S. and its deposition of Hussein. Who’s interests can the U.S. government claiming to be represent now? With more and more of the native population turning against us and Al-Queda to boot, the recent conservative claim that we are doing this for “Iraqi Freedom” is steadily becoming more rediculous. And the question of the day is, if Iraqis and muslim extremists decide to partner up to get rid of us will we really be safer after we are driven out? (even with saddam gone)
I have enjoyed reading the ALL the posts - pro and anti-Bush. I am neither a democrat nor republican and have found our government to be wildly out of touch with reality. However, I have found that the opposing sides of shrill political rancor is just more than I can bare for the next six months. This in not to say that we should throw our hands in the air and give up. I suggest a different tact.
Yes, our country seems to be extremely polarized - on a scale not seen since the 1850’s when abolition of slavery was being debated around the country. Case is point, is that last week I called one of my brothers on the east coast (i’m in the Rocky Mtn region) and we ended up in a political arguement. He’s on the right, and I lean left. The only point on which we could agree was that that the US media is just as much too blame for the divisiveness as the politicans themselves. Sensationalism, fear-mongering and outright lies are so common that any arguement can be substantiated by simply watching the types of shows that support one’s position. Collectively, we have lost any degree of respect, and tolerance, for those who have a differing opinion. We need to remember that those on the left, and those on the right, are no less patriotic than the other. In this time of division, we all need to step back, take a deep breathe and try to focus on the common goals we share. I put forth that most people in our country would probably agree with the following …
It’s a short list which could/should be longer so I’d be happy for any additions to round it out (but I digress). If we look at this list as the starting point for any political discussion, we may just stop the unending bickering and get to work on the topics that are REALLY important. Like getting money/Christianity out of politics, helping people find jobs (here and abroad), treating all people with respect, etc.
Just my two cents.
I don’t think Bush got over his drinking problem. How else could someone make such stupid decisions and be sober. I still remember after 9/11 when El Presidente got on the tube and started thanking everyone for their help after all was said and done. Now, (i wasn’t before) I’m a huge fan of Canada and you want to know why? Where do you think all the Americans stayed when their planes were grounded in Canada? Some stayed in Hotels, some in the airports, I’ll tell you where I stayed, in the home of an extremely kind and generous Canadian family. They fed me, they let me use their phone, computer, etc. etc. so I could get in touch with my family, and thanks to them I did.
That idiot Bush had the nerve to leave out Canada when he was thanking all the countries that helped out. I think some were, Libya, Turkey, Iran, France, China, Australia, just to name a few.
Bush just doesn’t think. He ignores Canada at every turn. He should be more carefull. They supply us with 60% of the wood we use to build our homes with, 2% of our electricity, and 70% of our hockey players (hahahaha).
In closing I would like to say “Thanks Dubbya for alienating us from the rest of the world”
Robulous-
Indeed that is a thought that has been echoing in my mind - however partisan I may appear to be. Though my posts have been highly critical of any government that is included in them, I feel that there can be no way of solving the problems raised unless the two sides, presuming there are two, find some common ground upon which to base arguments (this is exactly what you pointed out, and I agree with the 6 premises you included in your post) In fact I have thought of another:
7) We should attempt to fight terrorism, but not in the conventional form (fighting violence with violence) but fighting the poverty and famine that occurs in countries that house terrorists.
It seems useless to fight the terrorists unless we stop what is driving them to such mad ends. The attempt to annihilate groups such as Al Qaieda may be successful – after a considerable amount of innocent lives are lost – but new groups will spawn and new terror will emerge if we don’t stop the terrible living conditions that spawn terror, religious fanaticism, and the like.
The only reasonable premise to destroy global terror, for me, seems to be destroying poverty. Unfortunately most Western governments don’t feel the same way as I do, probably because their economic systems are built around the exploitation of poorer countries, which in turn results in mass poverty. Ah well…
I heard recently that each day 32,000 lives are lost due to diseases that are PREVENTABLE! This is terrible. That is 10 9/11’s every day! Do we see a war on poverty? Do we see Tony Blair and GB getting billions from parliament/congress to tackle this? Unfortunately not. (Fortunately) Blair is coming under fire because he has actually decreased funding in the water sanitation programmes for Africa, despite all his rhetoric.
Moving on, it is not often someone makes a remark like yours on a political website such as this (unfortunately, I’m used to conflict) and it is usually regarded with the ‘silent treatment’ (which is evident here, as no one has replied). After all, I don’t argue ‘to toss’ any time I’m engaged in an argument with someone of opposing political views in order for me to have the satisfaction of winning while they can loose. I would rather like to think that my arguments, though sometimes presented aggressively, are more a tool to persuade people to change their views on certain matters. (Not that I am trying to impose my views on anyone even though I have implied this) For instance, Hurin and me argued to be wary of supporting your government just because you feel you have to be patriotic - as if it’s an obligatory requirement of all citizens. On the contrary, the real patriot is one who questions the system thereby paving the way for continual improvement (this was first pointed out by Hurin) in the political system. If you truly love your country, then you should look to improve it in any way possible.
Furthermore, while there can be no ‘right’ answer in such matters, I like to feel that if one is objective, that is presenting the facts as they are without ideological comments, then one can be truly persuasive. This is a skill I have yet to acquire but until then I shall try and keep my ‘bias’ to a minimum. (After this post
I hope everyone else can do the same…
George W Bush has protected our country from terriosm and did what was right to make sure we are safe even though weapons of mass descrution have not been found “yet” Saddam was a threat. Our soldiers have been fighting for a country so they can avoid another 9/11. He has protected the foundations of marriage which is between a man and a women. He is doing what is right for our country.
John S-
(Though i said in a previous post that i would try to be objective i cannot on this issue as it is very, very subjective)
It’s a common argument from the new right that by ‘preserving’ the traditional marriage model, it will somehow protect the existing bond between heterosexual men and women in society. This argument is absolutely ridiculous, and actually based on two things:
1) By maintaining the traditional family model, it keeps a patriarchal society: governed and controlled by men.
2) Preserving traditional religious views. (Of course religion and patriarchy is a thing that is inseparable)
To somehow claim that a heterosexual relationship will be damaged if a few homosexual people marry is a deliberate lie. Do you think that just because homosexuals can marry, heterosexuals will suddenly convert to homosexuality?
By saying ‘this will protect the foundations of marrige’, you are implying that once homosexuals can marry, they will, affectively, destroy the sacred bond between meran and women in heterosexual couples. Do you understand that people’s sexual orientation is something that they can’t help, and something they can’t change?
Another popular argument from the new right is that people in working class areas should not be given sex education as “it encourages them to have unprotected sex”. The premise is, that if they don’t learn how to do it in school, they won’t learn how to have sex at all! HA HA HA!
Read into sociological studies and see how many people have criticized the new right, you might learn something new…
[…]
As for the other issues you raised, I encourage you to read all the articles above. I think they have addressed GB’s ‘competence’. If you feel you actually have a grounded argument to why gay people should be regarded as ‘second citizens’ because of their sexual orientation I would like to hear it. I’ll repeat “Religion and politics are a very dangerous mix, look at the middle eastern countries”
I respectfully await your response…
i find it amusing that so many induviduals back bush to the death on all issues or at least a majority of them. foreign affairs withstanding (we wont even go there considering the fact that no one will even consider the fact that much of the world’s terrorism is predicated on events that happened long ago and cannot be blamed on bush,) I still find it absolutely unbelievable that people can possibly favor Bush domestic policies. How can one be pro life, and yet execute more people than any governer in the history of the United States. How does killing people who commit crimes make us any better than they are? Because it’s righteous or something? Killing people is wrong. Bush himself would agree with this statement, yet his actions belie his words. He hides behind his “christian background,” and is stupid enough to believe that what he is doing is right, yet I believe one of the ten commandments is “thou shalt not kill.” It makes no mention of being able to void that rule if that person has killed someone else, or may someday do so. The fact that I am a christian makes this even worse as I have to listen to his dumb ass try to force his beliefs on the rest of the world. Since when is “freedom” considered to be oppression of gay induviduals, or pro choicers, or even people who want to have pre marital sex. Thats right folks, Bush has cut federal aid to condom companies because they may or may not support abortion. This seems odd, seeing as condoms prevent pregnancies. If Bush and all you other bible thumping hypocrites out there dont want to have sex before marriage, thats your perrogative, but dont sit there and tell others that they can’t, and then dont bitch if abortions occur when you are making it harder to afford protection. And dont even get started on the whole, but abortion is killing bullshit. If you want to sit here and tell me that a collection of cells that cant think, move, feel, or interact with the world is a human being, than apparantly a block of wood is too, and if you start with the whole, but its potential for life, than abstinance is abortion too, cuz all of that sperm has a potential for life, and i suppose we should go after the menstrual cycle too, it kills once a month.
Fuckin aye! Exposing the hypocrisy of some individuals. Thats very well put…
I’ve noticed that a lot websites have used Bush as a scapegoat for the war on terror and a lot of other domestic issues. After all, he is ‘the commander in chief’; but, I think, the blame should be placed on other individuals, such as Dick Cheney or Richard Pearle.
The neo-cons, for example, have far more influence, it seems, than Bush has on congress and as we all know they are referred to as “the crazies” in certain Washington circles. These individuals are prophesizing American global dominance, which is not far off from what GB is preaching, but their approach, appears to be more extreme. What’s more is that they have the money, the power and the influence, which makes them a little scarier than a ‘normal’ group of extremists.
I’m not saying GB should get less of the hate that is currently being directed at him from all corners of the world but I think people should realize that it is more than just Bush who has to pay for the various crimes against humanity that have been committed.
The crimes include, for example, the atrocities in Falluja, which unfortunately, have been rarely reported here (and it’s probably even rarer to see the facts over there in the U.S.). There has been a vast amount of evidence, coming from journalists, aid workers and hospitals, that most of the reported 600 people, who were killed by the 82nd U.S First Airborne Division and the Marine Expeditionary Unit, were predominantly children, women and the elderly.
As expected, the Marine commander, unfortunately his name slips my mind, has denied such claims and has said that 95% of all the dead were men of military age, adding that “the marines are trained to kill with precision and efficiency”. Well one of the directors of the many local hospitals seems to have disagreed with that, stating “Of all the 350 people I have seen: the majority are women, children and the elderly.
The MPs over here, our equivalent of congressmen/women, have not mentioned this in parliament at all. It seems that now the majority of the politicians who have supported this war, have subsequently lost their individual voices. Of what would normally be a matter they would raise, or speak out against has become taboo. A lot of ‘left-leaning’ (I use this term loosely) politicians have said nothing. Yet by definition, the killing of innocent women, children and the elderly, is terrorism. Alas, yet another example of extreme hypocrisy in the political playing field.
Going back to the point I raised in a previous point: the unintelligent approach of fighting terror with, basically, more terror. I read an article recently in my daily newspaper, The Guardian, by a man interviewing what the general consensus in mathematical circles perceives to be ‘an absolutely brilliant mathematician’. The recent N Abel prize winner, Sir Michael Atiyah, put it, “the war on terror, as presently run, is a self perpetuating engine turning out as many or more terrorists than it destroys or arrests.” This, I believe, in essence, is what the war on terror is doing, and just by observing the posts on this and other websites, is not an opinion that is held by me alone.
I would like to state that though I mentioned in a previous post that my opinions should be minimized, I acknowledge that this post, and the issues that have been raised in it, are again, very much a subjective matter (apart from the sources I included i.e. hospital director, Michael Atiyah etc.) It is therefore my obligation to say that this article is my opinion and that I do not feel that anyone should have to believe what is printed in it. I do, however, encourage anyone with an alternative viewpoint to post what they feel and I encourage everyone, regardless of age, class, gender, political, views, etc., to research into the recent atrocities in the city of Falluja.
Hey, for all of you out there who still think that homosexuality is wrong because it says so in the Bible, I have decided to list a few other passages that appear in the bible.
Leviticus 25:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
Deuteronomy 7:10 And repayeth them that hate him to their face, to destroy them: he will not be slack to him that hateth him, he will repay him to his face.
22:20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
22:21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you
23:1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
I could continue to do this all day, but I have better things to do with my time. The point here is that the Bible says lots of wacky things but it shouldnt take exemplary intellegence to tell what is genuine and what is wacky in the Bible. While Jesus said many worth things and condoned love among enemies, and forgiveness. You can find a passage in the stone-age writ of law that is the old testament to condone just about anything. So stop making it about the Bible or the “Sanctity of marraige” and fess up to your own fucking prejudice. The Devil can quote scripture to his purpose.
Ok for all you people who back up Bush I think you are just as evil as he is. I don’t give a fuck about your big stupid words, I don’t care who you label liberal and who you label “consevative”. YOu all talk about how Saddam is a murderer well guess what, so is Bush. He became a murderer when he sent all those troops to a stupid war that wasn’t even necessary. He’s a piece of shit and he doesn’t give a fuck who likes him and who dislikes him - he doesn’t care about the working middle class which makes up more than half of this country. Bill Clinton dealt w/ important issues he didn’t make enemies all around the world like that faggot george w. Bush sent this economy to shit and there is no recovery for another hundred years he’s created problems that won’t be solved for another 50 years. You all talk about Sept 11 like some strange people orchastred it. Well guess what your piece of shit hero George w. probably did all that to give himself a reason to go start a fucking meaningless war - swear to god if a dog, literally a fucking dog w/ 4 legs ran for president I’ll give that dog my vote. and all you people that are “proud conservatives” I read this quote somewhere “jesus was the ultimate liberal and was murdered by conservatives” dunno where but I remembered it. republicans need to get their heads out of their fucking ass!
This is the “lying-est” president and group of leaders in the executive branch this country has ever known. Bush should be impeached. He is directly responsible, along with Chainey and Rumsfeld and Powell and Rice, for the deaths of over 600 soldiers, the life-altering injuries to thousands more, and the deaths of thousands and thousands of Iraqi’s, who happen to be people who love and are loved.
Bill Clinton had extra-marital sex and was impeached. Bush released the name of a CIA agent (probably hoping she would be killed) and de facto ordered the deaths of thousands of people all the while lying to Americans about the justification for that act of vengeance — and, Bush is not impeached??? What is wrong with this picture?
I understand that George W. Bush lied to the American people and I hope that the Democrats win the up-coming American election. I understand an enormous number of lives were lost in the war on Iraq on both sides. There is one thing, though that looms in the back of my mind; what about all the people who suffered under the regime of Saddam Hussein? Hussein is, in my opinion an far more horrible person than Bush. He befouled Iraq for years. I just wanted to say, that there is a chance more lives could have been lost in the long run if there was no invasion. I’m not saying that there would have, been. I don’t know. Iraq is now a very unstable country where suicide bombings are rampant. I just wanted to raise the question.
Jo Smith-
I respect what you have said and I don’t think anyone could disagree with Saddam Hussein being a far worse person than GB is. Then again, at the same time, you should consider why the tyrant was allowed to stay in power. Why the man was let off after the first Gulf war – which, incidentally, was under the order of G.B senior. Why the man was allowed to rule as a direct result of a CIA coup that was called, by the then head of the CIA, James Critchfield, “our favourite coup” adding that “We regarded it as a great victory.”
This coup was designed to overthrow the new regime, called ‘The Arab Socialist Union’, which was in danger of threatening the foreign oil consortium, Iraq Petroleum Company, run by American companies. The coup was extremely successful and the Ba’ath Party Secretary General, Ali Saleh Sa’adi, concurred with what Critchfield had said, of course only after his party controlled the country. It was thereafter that Saddam Hussein, by all definitions a monster of a man, became the top man in 1979. He wasn’t stopped and neither was the Ba’ath party that had ruled before him. Hence the man continued to torture and kill his opponents until he stopped taking orders from the CIA.
Any way, the point I’m trying to make is that the international community did not only ignore Saddam, France, U.K and the U.S supported him. In a previous post I mentioned how the U.S and the UK armed Saddam, here it is:
“The Guardian” on May 2 and 8, 1992, as well as “The U.S. General Accounting Office, IRAQ: US Military Items Exported or Transferred to Iraq in the 1980s”, on February 1994, concluded that “Bush and his advisors financed, equipped, and soccoured the monster [Saddam Hussein] they later set out to slay, and now they were burying the evidnece.” That was qouted off Hnery Gonzalez , chairman of the House of Representatives Banking Committee”
Well, as you can see we have more than just Saddam to blame for the twenty years of oppresion the country has suffered. And it’s not only the last twenty years that the people of Iraq have been suffering: unfortunately, the country has been stricken with war and poverty for nearly a century. It seems the oil of Iraq has been a more of a burden for the people, then a gift. If you want a comprejensive history of Iraq and its dealings with the West, find my article posted on February 20, @11:58. It’s a VERY useful piece of information.
This post was not meant, in any way, to intimidate you or rebutt your opinion. I am just trying to illustrate how the West, in general, in my oponion, is as much to blame for the terrible conditions that the people of Iraq have indured for decades, as Saddam himself. This may sound a crazy thing to say but if you consider the fact that we (the West) armed him, we bombed the country after the first G.war had stopped, we stood by whilst knowing absolutely everything that was happening (see my post on April 2, 01:19Am ), we inforced sanctions when we knew it was killing people – it is now common knowledge that the Iraqi sanctions claimed the lives of more than a million people – we didn’t ‘finish the job’ in the first gulf war and last but not least, we had 20+ years to remove him, and could have at any given time, but didn’t.
im guessing that you all are people from the U.S, hes the best thing thats ever happened to America, he doesn’t do anything bad, except kill some people, and americans love that! otherwise they wouldnt be voting for HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! he found saddam so.. hes cured,, iraq of their dictator (svaed thousands of rapes, robberies, deaths, murders, and a bad person……….. He didnt find NUKES!!!!! so who cares he caught saddam and hell catch osama in 3 months time! he also …… attacked afghanistan in good intent and…. killed some taliban people who are all BAD!!!! AND THEY ALL HATE JEWS!!! SO THATS EVEN WORSE!!, do you want ww2 again!!! so styop dicattors and evil people like GWB did!!!! MUSLIMS usually hate GWB, and hgat jews,,,,, why WHO KNOWS!!!maybe if palestinians stop b lowing themselves up then…… GWB might stop harrassing them!!!! BE FAIR!!! amit it hes better than all you people hating him!!!!!!!!! THINK FOR ONCE>>>>>>>> IDIOTS!!!!!!!
Listen ‘hello’; don’t make the mistake of presuming everything fits into your black and white definition of who’s good and who’s evil. You should stop and think for a while and you might find that things are more complicated than you might imagine.
The conflict between Israel and Palestine is not just a simple case of ‘the Palestinians should stop suicide bombing’ and then everything will go away. Why don’t you tell the Israelis to stop killing children and woman and to stop forcefully removing the Arabs from their own homes? The Palestinians have reason to kill in the way in which they do because they have become prisoners in their own home – and they have no other way out. The colonist Jews have killed more than twice the amount of Arabs civilians than Arabs have killed Israeli soldiers and these sorts of conditions, as I have said before, spawn terror. And I don’t want to hear any of that you’re anti-Semitic bullshit because I have Jewish heritage, and I also don’t want any of that self-hater crap because I am in no way disrespectful of any human being because of their race, gender, class, sexual orientation, etc., and that includes my self. I am proud of my heritage but I do not, in any way, agree with Sharon’s domestic or international policy nor do I agree with Western policy in general.
I feel that what Israel is doing is at the moment is aggravating the situation and using the inevitable consequential violence for economic and political gain. Take, for example, the recent killing of the new Hamas leader – which was represented falsely by the media under the guise of “that’s one less terrorist”. The man was probably a terrorist, I agree, but the only thing this can achieve is more killing and more innocent lives lost. The Israeli army knew this, Palestine knew this, and damn near anyone in the whole world with just the most basic knowledge of that conflict knew that this act would result in a whole new wave of resistance. The media barely reported it. Funnily enough, a whole new generation of Arabs are promising to revenge their new leader, and they will.
Anyway, moving on, I feel that if I was placed in the same situation as some of the Arabs are being forced to reconcile with today, then I may too resort to suicide bombings. I don’t care if you call me an extremist or a terrorist but if your mother and father were murdered in front of you for no reason apart from their race, you might think twice about peaceful process. In reality, that’s what’s happening; kids are joining terrorist groups because loved ones are being taken prematurely from them. At such a young age, if that happened to me, I can’t say I’d do any different. There is documented evidence that suggest that most if not all suicide bombers in Israel have had a connection to an innocent family member, or friend killed by Israeli troops on purpose.
Now I know this is a sensitive issue, more in America than in the UK, but I welcome any alternative viewpoints. I also feel that the suicide bombings are too aggravating the situation further and that they are not in any way a good thing. All I said, just to make this clear, is that I may resort to them – if I was placed in the same situation as some Arabs are today. I do not doubt the majority of the people on this forum would do any different.
Hello, I welcome your response…
“…knew that this act would result in a whole new wave of resistance.”
What is it with these people?! You think that Palestinian terror would stop or even recede if Rantisi had been allowed to operate with impunity? You think Usama should be allowed to just go about his business?
There is no such thing as ‘Palestine.’ Perhaps one day, G-d willing, when the terror stops there will be a Palestinian state… Here’s an interesting little tidbit that isn’t mentioned much: the Palestinians were offered a sovereign state of their own in ‘47 - they, along with the rest of the Arab world, refused it and decided to make war instead.
“Colonist Jews?!” Now that’s chutzpah! Hello, it’s ISRAEL, no matter what the Romans or anyone else called it. You talk like Arafat. Listen to yourself. Palestinian terrorists who deliberately target innocent civilians are doing what they’ve got to do, but IDF soldiers run around killing Arabs for fun?
You may not want to hear it, but you need to… you’ve got anti-Semite and/or self-hater painted all over you.
If you are a Jew, think Palestinian terror is justified, and can still sleep at night, then I guess I’ll have to be ashamed FOR you.
Reuven-
I’ll reiterate:
“I don’t want to hear any of that you’re anti-Semitic bullshit because I have Jewish heritage, and I also don’t want any of that self-hater crap because I am in no way disrespectful of any human being because of their race, gender, class, sexual orientation, etc., and that includes my self.”
I’ll will also like to add that my dislike of Ariel Sharon’s politics should be in no way linked to the fact that he is Jewish. Moreover, I recognise that the Jews are by far the most oppressed race on the planet, but that does not make them immune from criticsim today. I believe, as I have stated in the previous post, that if you are going to criticise someone (and the same applies if you are going to praise them), you should disregard their race, sexual orientation, gender, etc. So, if I was to treat Ariel Sharon any differently to a black person for example, then I would be entriely inconsistent, would’t I?
What’s more, it really aggrevates me when you claim I’m anti-Semetic just because I have criticised the policies of a Jewish nation. As I have said before, I don’t wana hear any of that self-hater crap.
That argument is implemented by Zionists – by exploting the centuries of oppresion the Jews have encountered (not to mention the Holocuast) – and by using that, ensuring a type of immunity that is used to protect domestic policies: in this case the continued violation of Palestinian human rights carried out by the Isreali government.
Here, I see an inconsistency in most Zionists arguments, since there seems to be nothing wrong with removing Palestinians from there homes yet there was definitely something wrong with moving Jews from their homes at the time of the Nazis. (Both moving Jews and Arabs from their homes is wrong – I am only making this clear in case you try and twist my words by claiming I’m denying the holocaust or something along those ridicoulous lines.) Anyway, the point is: the self-hater argument is flawed and one which is based on histroy to back up its current economic and political policies.
Moving on, I thought i’d point out a lot of inaccuries in your post.
1)You said:
“You think that Palestinian terror would stop or even recede if Rantisi had been allowed to operate with impunity?”
No, I never said that. I said:
“I feel that what Israel is doing is at the moment is aggravating the situation and using the inevitable consequential violence for economic and political gain.”
Adding that “The man was probably a terrorist, I agree, but the only thing this can achieve is more killing and more innocent lives lost”
2) You also said:
“You think Usama should be allowed to just go about his business?”
No I never said that either. You are I implying that what I said about the Palestinian terror should aplly to all terror in the same way – but just because I don’t feel that all acts of terror should be treated in the same way, doesn’t mean that I support Osama Bin Laden. This is a ridicolous and offensive thing to say, and as I regard my self as a libertarian, it is something that I have never been subjected to in all my posts, on all the forums I write on.
If you cannot see the political style and content that I write, you are a moron. . In the case of Osama and 9/11 I believe he should be trialled for crimes against humanity and if he gets the death penalty then so be it. Reueven, I am pro-unions, pro-workers, pro-socialist, pro-equality, pro-liberty, pro-freedom and pro-everything that helps the misfortunate people of this planet. I, unlike you, have the abilty to write in a relatively objective way with regards to Isreal. You, unlike I, have twisted words and have showed your true feelings to all Arabs.
This is not only onffensive, but also intimidating. You have shown with your opinions, which, unlike mine, are based entirely on a genreal animosity aimed against Arabs and a pro-Israel sentiment regardless of what that nation happens to do to Arabs.
3) You also happened to say:
“You talk like Arafat. Listen to yourself. Palestinian terrorists who deliberately target innocent civilians are doing what they’ve got to do, but IDF soldiers run around killing Arabs for fun?”
No I never said soldeirs kill for fun nor did I say Palestinians kill because they have to . I said:
“The Palestinians have reason to kill in the way in which they do because they have become prisoners in their own home.” Adding that “I feel that if I was placed in the same situation as some of the Arabs are being forced to reconcile with today, then I may too resort to suicide bombings.”
Never once did I state that the Palestinian terrorists are doing what they have to do, nor did I even agree with what they are doing. Hence the:
“I also feel that the suicide bombings are too aggravating the situation further and that they are not in any way a good thing.”
You see, your argument is based on emotion where mine is too, but clearly not as much or in any way as blatant as yours evidently is. You seem to hone in on the easiest line: you’re anti-Semitic or “You’re a self-hater”, but disregard the basic human rights of people, in this case, the Palestinians being forced out of their own homes.
As far as history of Israel is concerned, I will address that issue when I get back from college – I have all my resources there. There are further inaccurate claims in your post none of which I will address yet – as I haven’t the time or will. I await your response
As you can see the previous post was very incoherent which can be put down to a number of things; mostly, however, due to a heavy workload. If you are in any way unclear about what I have said in my posts then I’ll be more than happy to clarify things. Unfortunately I haven’t the time to address your post tonight but I’ll endeavour to reply to it at some time during the day tomorrow. Much as I love sinking to the level of mindless insults, you have given me no other choice:
You said- “You may not want to hear it, but you need to… you’ve got anti-Semite and/or self-hater painted all over you.”
I know I addressed this in a previous post but I can’t repeat it enough – I AM NOT AN ANTI-SEMITIC OR SELF-HATER. And you, for your information, have got inconsiderate, biased, ignorant and racist painted all over you. This quote sums it up:
“There is no such thing as ‘Palestine.’”
I know there isn’t such a thing as a Palestinian State but refusing to even achknowledge the fact that these people have a separate culture, social identity and lifestyle to Isreali Jews is arrogant and self centered. I look forward to arguing with you in the future, that is if you come back…
Just brosed this on the net, a little history of Zoinism. You’ll find it interesting:
The “father” of political Zionism, Theodore Herzl (1860-1904), came from a totally different perspective. Dr. Herzl was a Viennese, emancipated, secular journalist who was sent by his editor to Paris in 1894 to cover the Dreyfus affair. Dreyfus had been a captain in the French Army who was falsely accused and convicted of treason (although he was acquitted and completely cleared some years later). The case brought to light the strength of a strong streak of anti-Semitism prevalent in the upper echelons of the French Army and in the French press, with profound repercussions in emancipated Jewish circles. Herzl himself despaired of the whole idea of emancipation and integration and felt that the only solution to anti-Semitism lay in a Jewish Homeland. To that end he approached various diplomats and notables, including the Ottoman Sultan, but mainly European rulers, the great colonial powers of the time, and was rewarded for his efforts by being offered Argentina or Uganda by the British as possible Jewish Homelands.
Herzl would have been quite happy with either of these countries, but when the first Zionist Congress was convened in Basle in 1897, he came up against Eastern European Jewry, by far the greatest majority of participants, who, although broadly emancipated and enlightened, would not accept any homeland other than the land of Zion. Not only had some of them already settled in Palestine, there were strong remnants of the religious/sentimental notion of a pilgrimage and possibly burial in the Holy Land. The last toast in the Passover ceremony is “Next year in Jerusalem”; although this was a religious rather than a national aspiration, it was common amongst the Orthodox communities to purchase a handful of soil purporting to come from the Holy Land to be placed under the deceased’s head. (Orthodox Jews at that time completely rejected any Jewish political movement and did not attend the congress.)
Herzl was quick to realise that unless he accepted the “Land of Zion”, i.e. Palestinian option, he would have hardly any adherents. Thus the Zionist movement started with a small section of Jewish society who saw the solution to anti-Semitism in a return to its “roots” and in a renewal of a Jewish people in the land of their ancestors. In his famous book “Der Judenstaat” (The State of the Jews) Herzl wrote that the Jews and their state will constitute “a rampart of Europe against Asia, of civilisation against barbarism,” and again regarding the local population, “We shall endeavour to encourage the poverty-stricken population to cross the border by securing work for it in the countries it passes through, while denying it work in our own country. The process of expropriation and displacement must be carried out prudently and discreetly—Let (the landowners) sell us their land at exorbitant prices. We shall sell nothing back to them.”
Max Nordau, an early Zionist, visited Palestine and was so horrified that the country was already populated that he burst out in front of Herzl: “But we are committing a grave injustice!” Some years later, in 1913, a prominent Zionist thinker and writer, Ahad Ha’am (one of the people), wrote: “What are our brothers doing? They were slaves in the land of their exile. Suddenly they found themselves faced with boundless freedom … and they behave in a hostile and cruel manner towards the Arabs, trampling on their rights without the least justification … even bragging about this behaviour.” But the dismay of Nordau and others at the injustices to, and total lack of recognition of, the indigenous population was silenced and indeed edited out of Jewish history and other books, as was some of Herzl’s writing. The Zionist slogan of “a land without people for a people without land” prevailed and within a matter of a few years the immigrants became “sons of the land” (Bnei Ha’aretz), whereas the inhabitants became the aliens and foreigners.
Following renewed efforts and lobbying after Herzl’s death, the Balfour Declaration in 1917, which granted Zionists a Jewish Homeland in Palestine, set the official seal of approval on their aspirations. Protests and representations by local Arab leaders were brushed aside. Lord Balfour wrote in 1919: “In Palestine, we do not even propose to consult the inhabitants of the country. (Zionism’s) immediate needs and hopes for the future are much more important than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who presently inhabit Palestine.”
Well of course, Palestine doesn’t exist. Expect a lot more from me in the future.
One thing I am really sick of is the implied idea that one kind of prejudice is any better or worse than any other. The people who are posting pro-israli arguments on this site seem to be arguing that Israel is justified while palistinians are barbaric suicide bomber animals. To criticize this view is of course anti-semetic. Lets get one thing streight, Neither party in this thing is right, they both kill each others civilians. The difference is that Israel uses american made tanks and guns while the Palistinians who have no support must resort to home cooked weapons. This of course makes the Palistinians “Terrorists” and the Isralies “Tough on Terror.” Same fucking difference. So call me anti semitist, go ahead do it until you are blue in the face, and I still wont care. If you would call a critic of Israel an anti-Semite while lambasting Palistine then you are an anti-Muslim and no fucking better. No race or creed is any better than any other period.
I never denied the existence of a Palestinian national identity. There certainly ARE Palestinians, just no ‘Palestine.’
It is the suicide bombers who are ‘barbaric animals,’ not Palestinians in general.
I truly sympathize with the Palestinian predicament, but there is NEVER any justification for murdering innocent people. They do NOT ‘have reason.’ That goes for Israelis as well. The Palestinians would do well to be rid of that crook Arafat and elect a leader who really cares about their well-being.
Bush is a warmonger. Sharon is a warmonger. I support Arik’s disengagement plan. I support the fence (though I would have drawn the route differently) and just about any other measure that keeps terrorists from entering Israel. I miss Bibi. His talents and leadership (not to mention his intelligence) are wasted in the Finance Ministry.
As a Zionist myself, I know all about it (Zionism).
I’m not denying that there were some some expulsions, but the vast majority of Palestinian Arabs fled their homes. That’s what people do in war. They were encouraged to leave by Arab leadership. It is important to remember that, at the time, Palestinians thought that the Jews would quickly be driven into the sea by the attacking Arab armies and that they would be able to return to their homes thereafter.
You were absolutely right about one thing, Bill. My previous post was very emotional, perhaps excessively so. While I reserve the right to get as emotional as I will, I should not have attacked you personally. Apologies. I have been very angry of late. There is SO much unfair anti-Israeli bias out there, it really upsets me. Nobody in the world seems to care about how Arab states treat Palestinians, the microscope is always on Israel.
Ok, let’s see, what else… Oh, Balfour’s letter to Rothschild did not grant Zionists a homeland, it simply expressed that “His Majesty’s government view[ed] with favour the establishment of a Jewish National Home…” Indeed, beginning shortly after the Mandate set in, the British fought the Zionist enterprise tooth and nail with their successive ‘White Papers.’ Even after the Holocaust, the British turned Jewish survivors away from their homeland, forcing Haganah, Irgun, and others to smuggle them in ‘illegally.’
I’ll finish this one in a general sort of way. The real origin of the conflict: British and French imperialism (mainly British). The biggest obstacle today: Those damned settlers. I respect their religious conviction to want to live in Yesha, but if they want to stay there, they will have to submit to Palestinian sovereignty. Just a thought, but if those settlements were evacuated, they would be perfect for the resettlement of Palestinian refugees.
‘Amim Yisrael u’Falastin chai l’dor vador.
I agree with what Hurin said. Moreover, I find the reason that people are so much more pro Israel in America than in the UK is because of a few influential people like Richard Pearle or Douglas Feith.
Richard Pearle of the Bush Administration’s Defense Planning Board teamed with Douglas Feith in the 1990s to write position papers for ex-Israeli Prime Minister and avid hardliner Benjamin Netanyahu. Pearle is currently a prominent member of the staunchly Likudian American Enterprise Institute, which has crucially shaped the Bush administration’s Middle East agenda and has made the support of Israel against the “implacable hatred” of Muslims one of its mission parameters .
It appears Pearle and Feith have not only influenced the defense policy but also have great control over the media and the way in which Israeli-Palestinian violence has been depicted. In the U.K we see not as much of this political bias but we still see some people, like the high-flying media mogul, Conrad black, who exercises much influence over the media. Black also has much influence in politics, incidentally, he is an MP. But of course, Zionism is down to more than just individuals; it runs deep in the UK. While Jews in the UK only encompass 0.5% of the population and just 2% in the US, their influence is profound.
As I have said before, the self hater argument and the anti-Semitic argument are both very closely linked to the terrible tragedies that Jews have encountered for centuries: the most influential is unarguably, the Holocaust. Of course, this is still fresh in the minds of both Jewish people (I have relatives currently living in London who were Jewish-German refugees at the time of the WW2) as well as all other races. And by no means, should such a tragedy be forgotten, however, I do not feel that under any circumstances it should be used to further the political and economic interests of Israel. I actually regard this as an insult to the people affected by the Holocaust and a callus and grossly opportunistic thing to do.
When I consider that some people have actually used the deaths of over 7million Jews, not to mention the cripples, the physically deformed, the trade unionists, the gypsies and the other ‘non-humans’ the Nazis exterminated, as a means by which to counter criticism in the political playing field, it actually makes me feel physically sick. It is disgusting – with lack of a better word. Now I’m not saying that Reuven is doing this (and I do not doubt that very sickness is exactly what he is currently feeling) but I do feel that a lot of Zionists think (be it subconsciously or consciously) that they have political immunity due to the self-hater and anti-Semitic defense. In fact, I agree with what Reuven has said about Bush, Sharon and Arafat.
It is clear that Arafat is as corrupt as he is inconsiderate but it also clear that Sharon’s corruption goes deeper (the case of the bribing officials, regrettably I cannot remember the details). I do feel however, they should both go – and later on in the day I shall be posting some interesting info on Sharon (I shall try and find some equally interesting info on Arafat – so as to limit any bias). I think Arafat is grossly detached from the people he represents and is also ignorant of a great many things. I do not, however, agree in the fence and I do not feel it can do anything but increase the degeneration Israel is currently undertaking. You must ask: what type of society have you created when you have to build fences around your homes in order to keep another race out in fear of them attacking you?
I recognize the issue of the fence is a lot more complicated than this, but I do feel the current method of stopping terrorism will be ineffective. As Hurin pointed out, both sides are equal in blame and neither should be immune from prosecution, even if one has much more influence and wealth, and another uses more extreme and unorthodox methods of killing. I think that by keeping curfews, forcefully moving Arabs from their homes, destroying infrastructure and generally making the lives hell for people because of their race is a very bad thing. However, I think that killing innocent people just because of their race is also a very, very bad thing. Both sides need to work it out and though this may be easier said than done, I feel that both administrations are in need of vast changes and compromises must be made on both sides. Having said that, I do feel that Israel is more dangerous than Palestine, partly due to the morale high ground it has achieved in the mass western media, and partly due to its support from America and Britain.
Take for example, the Security Council that passed Resolution 1435, which demanded that “Israel immediately cease measures in and around Ramallah including the destruction of Palestinian civilian and security infrastructure” and withdraw its “occupying forces from Palestinian cities towards the positions held prior to September 2000”. The resolution was passed 14-0 with one abstention, the United States. Israel dismissed it; and nothing happened. This was no surprise. The Israelis have defied at least 40 Security Council resolutions and scores of General Assembly resolutions: a record of dishonouring and “casting aside” the law (to quote Bush) unequalled by any nation since the UN was founded. Like Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in the 1980s, Israel’s defiance is rewarded with all the weapons and fighter aircraft it wants. Just as Britain used to supply Saddam with the means of making chemical bombs, so the Blair government currently supplies the Israeli regime of Ariel Sharon with chemical warfare technology. This includes “PCPs” which can easily be turned into lethal sarin nerve gas which, next to nuclear weapons, is the most feared weapon of mass destruction. Above all, this shows the defiance of Israel, it shows the hypocrisy of the United States/Britain and a reason why Israel should not continue its campaign against Palestinians. There is overwhelming evidence that Israel has committed crimes against humanity, (as said above) disregarded basic human rights (as said above), and have deliberately escalated violence to the point where they have used terrorist attacks as a means to justify invading Palestinian areas and evicting Arabs. This, like the war on terror – as it is currently run, is going to do nothing more than create a generation of anti-American, Anti-Israel and anti-Western bitterness. Is it convenient that this exact bitterness could be used as further justification for more wars, more evictions, and more crimes against humanity? Convenient indeed, I’ll leave it there… As you mentioned Britain in your post, I thought I would too. You are 100% correct that Britain fought Israel and the Israeli’s defended it successfully. For this, I am extremely grateful to Israel – since a victory for any country against imperialism is a victory for all (to quote a well known Cuban revolutionary). It is a common imperialist tactic to divide and rule. If, as was the case in Ireland, the Imperialists can’t rule, they tend to split the country in two (usually where there are separate ethnic groups) and then aggravate violence between the pair, often by selling weapons to both sides. (Northern/Southern Ireland plays a prime example again). Anyway, the imperialists use the inevitable war to weaken both sides and leave them fragile and economically impotent. An example of this tactic can be seen in the India-Pakistan conflict over Kashmir which was, before Britain left, a relatively peaceful country with hardly any conflict. Nowadays, the country is stricken with poverty and war and this is exactly the result the Brits wanted. Alas, I do not understand the ways of imperialism nor do I understand the current dominant political gene. Unfortunately, I can’t end on a happy not as I have just seen a line in your post. It says that “the British turned Jewish survivors away from their homeland”. There is nothing wrong with this statement as such, but I don’t agree, as a matter of principle, with the term ‘homeland’. That any person should be given a “homeland” on this planet because of their race is disrespectful of other races who might happen to want to live there. This planet is for humans and animals and for humans and animals only. If I were, for example, to claim that Briain is a homeleand for white Arians you may have a different view. I think the term ‘homeland’ for Jews disregards equality, freedom and a number of other things – none of which I want to elabourate on.
To modify what I have said; I feel that there can be no true home of any race on this splanet. And though I do not have any problem with races/religions believing they have the right to live in a certain place (in fact I feel any one should have the right to live anywhere they want regardless of their race, gender, etc.,) I don’t, however, feel that people should get priority in living somewhere because they were born a particular race.
Expect more from me soon…
Here’s an interesting article on Sharon. Sadly, it’s on CD so I’ll have to print out a section of it rather then giving you guys a web address to read the lot. Nevertheless, there’s a hell of a lot more on Sharon so if it gets raised again I will be more than happy to incorporate more of it in the future.
[…]
“Sofia Mohamed Mahmoud Shamasna, Amina Isa Abdel-Halim Al-Faqih, Halima Hassan Ahmed Taha — three women from the village of Qatana in north western Jerusalem gunned down in an ambush while on their way to the village water well. Their names have never been published, and few people know, as perhaps no one knew at the time, that the person who gave the order to shoot them 50 years ago was Ariel Sharon.
In 1952-1953 Sharon was enrolled at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, about to become a student when he was recalled into the army to head a reserve regiment in the area of Jerusalem. Shortly after his appointment he assembled his officers and told them that the village women from Qatana were, without realising it, crossing into Israel when they went to fetch water from the well. The boundary between the Israeli settlement Ma’aliya Hahmishah and Qatana was not clearly demarcated, “Eric” told them, and in order to “correct that mistake” they would lay an ambush. “Eric” also instructed his officers to keep the plan secret so that it would not come to the attention of Central Area Command or General Staff.
The scenario was carried out precisely as Eric planned. Four marksmen were put into position at night and shot and killed two out of four women making their way to the village well. The Jordanian artillery opened fire on the Israeli villages in the vicinity and the Israeli artillery retaliated. The incident drew to a close with the intervention of UN observers in charge of monitoring the ceasefire. Later, when explaining the incident to his superiors, “Eric” expounded on the difference between shooting targets from a stationary position and taking aim at them while in motion during combat.
This account of events appears in Uzi Benziman’s He Does not Stop at Red (Adama Books, Tel Aviv 1994, pp. 35-36). When I contacted the author to confirm the story he told me his sources were soldiers who had served in the same unit as Sharon. I then went to Qatana where residents corrected my information: three women were shot that night, not two. I asked what the names of the victims were. I had been unable to find them in any Israeli sources. I felt it important to record their names in this article.
Contrary to the impression among inhabitants of the villages of north western Jerusalem this atrocious crime was carried out before the creation of Special Commando Unit 101 in August 1953. Led by Sharon from the outset the purpose of Unit 101 was to mount retaliatory raids against Palestinian villages along the border with Jordan, against civilian targets in Gaza and along the ceasefire lines with Syria. Sharon personally engineered the merger of his unit with the 890 Paratrooper Brigade in January 1954, which was then incorporated, by Moshe Dayan, into the paratroop corps over which Sharon was eventually appointed commander.
It was Unit 101 that bequeathed the most notorious moral “password” in Israeli military history. When some Israeli soldiers voiced qualms over the ethics of targeting civilians in retaliatory operations, Shlomo Baum, deputy commander of the unit, responded curtly: “Our guns must be clean, not pure.” In other words it was the soldier’s job to make sure his artillery was in good working order and ready for combat, not to worry about moral criteria that had no place in the fighting creed of that unit. The soldiers of Unit 101 and then the paratroop corps became the model of the aggressive Israeli fighter. This unit formulated the moral creed of an entire army. Not that the model it set was emulated in all aspects, apart from its implication in lies and false reports, as we shall see.
The first attack carried out by Unit 101 was mounted against Al-Bureij refugee camp on the night of 28 August, 1953. Learning that its presence had been discovered, instead of withdrawing it stormed the camp and escaped from the other side, and thus found itself surrounded by unarmed civilians. The ensuing massacre claimed 43 Palestinian refugees, among whom were seven women, and wounded 22. Losses of Unit 101 totaled two wounded. Sharon had personally led the attack. In his report to his superiors he justified the enormous civilian death toll that resulted as follows: “The enemy opened fire on me from the northwest… I decided that it was better to pass through the camp and slip out the other side than to go back the way I came, because crops, gardens, barbed wire and guards made it difficult to move in that direction… I also decided that offensive action was better than giving the impression that we were attempting to escape… Therefore I invaded the camp with my group.” (Benny Morris, Israel’s Border Wars: 1949-1956, Aam Ufid, Tel Aviv, 1996, p. 273)
As the last sentence of his military report illustrates, Sharon would rather attack and kill civilians than appear to be retreating. The equation is clear and the price clearer. International ceasefire observers described the Bureij operation as “an alarming instance of deliberate slaughter”. Israel’s government at the time officially denied responsibility for the operation, giving Western diplomats to understand that it had been undertaken independently by Israeli vigilantes and members of the kibbutzim near the Jordanian border in retaliation against raids mounted by Palestinian infiltrators. The lie, by which Israeli officialdom took refuge behind Israeli civilians ostensibly acting on their own, was repeated on a grander scale in Qibya.
On 13 October 1953 Prime Minister David Ben Gurion met with Minister of Security Yitzhak Lavon and Moshe Dayan, head of operations in the office of the chief of staff, to discuss retaliation for the murder of a Jewish woman and her two children in a grenade attack on her home by a Palestinian infiltrator. Qibya was mooted as a suitable target and, apparently, there was a ready-for-use plan calling for the demolition of 50 out of the 280 homes in the village. However, what is of particular interest here is what happened to the order as it passed down the line of command.
The order issued by Dayan read, “Operation Shushna: Objective, carry out sharp-response reprisals against villages being used as bases for [Palestinian] infiltration operations. Task A: incursion into Naalein and Shiqba villages with the aim of destroying a number of houses and wounding their inhabitants. Task B: attack Qibya, occupy it temporarily, blow up homes and cause injury, forcing inhabitants to flee the village.”
The order was transmitted by hand to Central Area Command, which reissued it as follows: “The aim of Chief of Staff is to mount sharp-response destroy-and- kill reprisal operations against Arab villages. The task: attack Qibya, occupy it temporarily, demolish homes and kill as many as possible in order to compel inhabitants to flee their homes… Invade Naalein and Shiqba, destroy a number of houses and kill inhabitants and soldiers.”
Already the order had become more explicitly murderous than the original, as is obvious by the addition of “kill as many as possible”. Working at the time in Central Area Command was David Alazar, operations officer (later to become chief of staff in the 1973 War). His counterpart in the office of the chief of staff was Rahboam Zaiffi , nicknamed Gandhi. The following is how Sharon, commander of the operation, interpreted the order to the forces that were to take part in it:
“The objective of Command is to mount sharp- response reprisal operations… The task: invade Qibya, occupy it, kill as many as possible and do as much damage as possible to property… Invade Naalein and Shaqba, kill inhabitants and blow up a number of houses.”
In an article in Haaretz, on 8 June 1994, Ben Gurion’s semi-official historian, Shabtai Tibit, attempted to vindicate the former Israeli prime minister. The metamorphosis of the operation command order he attributes to the military culture of the Palmach, the underground paramilitary organisation that fathered most of Israel’s military elite. The formula, “kill as many as possible”, (in Hebrew, “cause maximum loss of life”) had been in use in Palmach since the Haganah, on 12 December 1947, adopted a policy of “effective defence” and “systematic retaliation”. In practical terms, Shabtai suggests that no one can be held responsible for the bloodthirsty wording of the Qibya orders since such orders are deeply rooted in the Zionist military credo.
The operation was carried out after midnight on 15 October. Carrying 700 kilos of explosives the task force blew up 54 houses within three hours. Seventy villagers were killed, most of them women and children. Most of the victims died from bullet wounds. A significant portion perished beneath the rubble of their homes, having been given no warning to vacate.
The Qibya massacre triggered international outrage in the face of which Tel Aviv issued the following statement: “Over the past four years armies from the Trans-Jordan (read: Kingdom of Jordan) and from other Arab countries have been infiltrating Jewish settlements on the borders and in Jerusalem in order to commit murder and theft. Hundreds of citizens — men, women, children and the elderly — have been killed and wounded. Arab governments have sponsored these operations directly and indirectly for an obvious political purpose, which is to destroy Israel and make life in it impossible.”
[…]
Oh, I think its safe to say that the IDF have DELIBERATELY targeted innocent civilians. It is also safe to say there are numerous similarities between Saddam and Sharon – having both served in the army and both being driven by sheer animosity. Saddam despised the Kurds in the same way as Sharon despises the Arabs. The difference is: Saddam had no moral high ground to fall back on, Sharon, on the other hand, had WW2 to entirely silence any form of criticism…
At the top of this page you find the arguments on the WMD’s. The thing is that Saddam was a problem that had to be dealed with. So what if he didn’t have WMD he still had a history of killing his own people. If he could do that on his own people I have no doubt in my mind that he would not even think twice on doing it to us!!!!
I hate the word ‘race.’ It is a vicious lie. History will eventually record it on the same page as the blood libel. The concept that there is more than one “race” of human beings on this earth was deliberately concocted by Europeans to justify colonialism and imperialism and other ‘Manifest Destinies.’ I find it surprising (and a little troublesome) that someone such as yourself, who espouses such pluralistic views, would be taken in by it. There is but one ‘race,’ no matter which side of the Pacific, Mediterranean, or the Green Line you’re talking about. The assertion that Jews and Arabs are in conflict in the Middle East because of their ‘race’ is as ridiculous and offensive as the claim that they’re fighting over religion. I find your arguments against the concept of homeland pretty thin. Do the Iroquois not have a homeland? The Maoris? The Japanese? The Jewish people wasn’t ‘given’ or ‘granted’ a homeland - it has been for thousands of years. There have ALWAYS been Jews in Israel. What I hear is you attempting to deny peoples’ right to self-determination, which is curious given that it is the root of your argument against Israeli policy on the Palestinians. I am beginning to suspect that you would like to see the state of Israel abolished.
Veronica, Don’t you care that you were lied to? Don’t you worry about what else this Administration might be lying to you about if it could so callously and blatantly lie about something so serious as WMD? I guarantee you that there are plenty of guys out there who do worse to their own people all the time. This was NOT about ‘liberating’ the Iraqi people. Wake up. Don’t you realize that you’re just spouting Administration sound-bytes like a parrot? Blind support is dangerous. Saddam COULDN’T have done anything to the US even if wanted to. He was contained and HAD NO WEAPONS!!! I can tell you who does, though. The United States. They have the largest stockpiles of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons in the world. Try asking them to disarm. They’d go apeshit. The United States is the only country in the world that has ever used a nuclear weapon against others and is the only country today that threatens to use them again. Question a little. Don’t be a lemming.
The concept of race is a long and difficult argument to address. The answer is unsure, but without doubt, I would agree with you that we’re all humans and that there is only human race. (If I didn’t agree, would I be a consistent libertarian?)
However, when there is general consensus that race does exist, I will use this definition upon which to base my arguments. If I were to ponder each and every philosophical or scientific uncertainty each time there was a reference to it, I would get nowhere. If I were, for example, to start arguing about the rights of Palestinians, I would have to address the problem in existence of a material world in order for me to claim that there are any Palestinians existing.
In addition, I may have to address the epistemology of solipsism, or almost certainly the problem of evil and how to define it, if you can define it. I would also have to address ethics and how one can never define a good or a bad thing (therefore resulting in my arguments that are aimed at you, which are by and large, based on opinion, being completely ineffective.) I would also have to address how human beings are scientifically no way different to each other yet there is a comprehensive social construction of race that is evident everywhere in contemporary societies.
The point is: my posts would be much, much longer, and harder to write. My opinion would be shrouded with some relevant, but mostly irrelevant information. My answers to questions would be undermined by certain theories and there would be NO conclusion. As far as your claim that I am taken in by race, I am only using the social construction of race as a means to bringing my point across to the largest possible audience. And if I had the impression that you were too a libertarian – as I am, then I may have addressed it differently. Until the problem of race was brought up, you had given me the impression that you weren’t in any way as ‘liberal minded’ as me and hence I didn’t think you’d be even aware of such a profound social fabrication as race. Sorry, but that’s the impression you gave me.
Moreover, with regards to your opinion on race I am in 100% support of your view, I think the concept of race is used as a means to discriminate and segregate people. I think race divides and polarises people. I think certain ethnic groups are described racially and for this reason are used as scapegoats for social problems. I think the concept of race has given ammunition for various terrorist groups such as white supremacists. I think that ultimately we are all human beings and though we do share different languages, different cultures and different societies, we are nevertheless part of the same species. I also think that the problem of eugenics has arisen partly out of the social construction of race and partly out of the general animosity some people have for another. Having said all that, I do think a reasonable way to define different people would be based on their language, culture and the society they live in. As a result, I will now classify certain people as ethnic groups.
I hope I have cleared that up with you and if there is anything you want me to clarify, you know where to find me. Moving on, I now have to alter my statements to be consistent in what I have just said. For example you pointed out that I said in a previous post:
“The assertion that Jews and Arabs are in conflict in the Middle East because of their ‘race’ is as ridiculous and offensive as the claim that they’re fighting over religion.”
This should be transformed into something like: “The Jews and Arabs are in conflict because of their different ethnic groups and cultures. Religion intensifies this hostility further – as it is often used as a means to justify conflict. Though both religion and ethnicity are not a cause, they are increasingly important factors and help to add to the animosity both sides have for the other.” I realise that what I said was offensive for both Jews and Arabs and I shall be happy to modify any statement that has come across as being ethnocentric, offensive or ridiculous to you in any way. I apologise to you and anyone else who has been offended by this.
As you stated my homelands arguments were ‘thin’, I shall modify these too. When I said: “I feel that there can be no true home of any race on this splanet”, I should have said: “There can be no true home for any ethnic group on this planet.” I would like to add, though I think I did make it pretty clear in the previous post, that this opinion is based not on the demolishing of the Israeli state (as you claimed) but on the observation that countries, such as Zimbabwe, have used ethnicity to claim their land is for certain ethnic groups and for those ethnic groups alone.
While this may seem reasonable if you consider the centuries of divide and rule Africa has had to bear with thanks to the West, it is by no means as way to justify ethnic eviction, of in this case, light skinned ethnic groups. I feel that like Zimbabwe, the Israeli government has used ethnicity as a means to claim their ownership of the land. Now I’m not a relgious person but to the best of my knowedge this presumption is based on religion. Yes…? And I have no problem with people believing in homelands – as I have said before. But I do not feel that just because someone is part of an ethnic group they are claimed to a better life, which is evident if they are part of a Jewish ethnic group and living in Israel as oppose to being part of Arabic ethnic group living in Israel. This, I feel is wrong. And as someone who appears to oppose any form of race distinction, I think you will feel the same way (if you agree with the premises).
The point that you raised which claimed I was actually basing my opinions on the wanting to abolish the Israeli state is unfounded. As I have said before, and I will continue to say if you don’t comprehend it: I am in no way in support of any group based entirely on their ethnicity, social class, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Acordingly, I am in no way opposed to any group based entirely on their ethnicity, social class, gender, sexual orientation, etc. I treat all governements, social institutions and societies as equally as I can possibly do so, I also feel that I criticise accordingly. And though I support left wing governments more than right wing ones, I do attempt to criticise any governing of any country.
Here, you could counter this by claiming the majority of my posts are critiquing American administrations but the issue that has been dominant on this forum has been Iraq and I have incorporated as much alternative anti-Western content as I could have. You could also, however, claim that there is bias in my posts concerning Israel – as there is more anti-Israel content as there is anti-Palestine, but I can only post the content from the sources that I agree with, and to post some anti-Palestine content would unfortunately result in me having to go to a biased pro-Zionist website. I’m not saying there isn’t the info out there, I’m just saying that my expereince of searching for anti-Palestine info has resulted in an array of biased Zionist sites whereas the content I post on Israel, comes from niether Arabs nor Jews and I believe it is relatively free of bias. That is my opinion, I am entitled to it, you are welcome to rebutt it.
Last but not least, would you care to elabourate on this:
“What I hear is you attempting to deny peoples’ right to self-determination, which is curious given that it is the root of your argument against Israeli policy on the Palestinians.”
P.S.
I have just seen your post to Veronica and I can’t say I would disagree with anything that you have said. I think if we had started this debate after I had seen your opinions on the GB Administration, we probably would have got more resolved. Did you know, for example, that America has, on the last count in 1999, 11,000 nuclear missiles? This is enough to wipe out every inch of the world including the sea twice over. You, as well as I, are probably thinking why anyone should need such an arsenal. Aliens, possibly…? I think the Christian Right may think otherwise…
Hey Reuven,
Saddam did have weapons, he attacked his own people with them!! If a man has a family and owns a gun and lives in the bad part of town, he has never killed anyone but he threats you attack his family he will shoot to kill. But across the street is a man who has all ready killed his wife and children and might have another gun in his house, who do you think has a the right to own the gun? I beleive that, if that raging Lunatic might have WMD’S I will go in their to. All the Bush Administration was doing was protecting his country, his home, his people, and even deeper then that his family! ZI have notice about the American people is you mess with us or if we think your messing with us you better watch out. Are you a U.S. citizen?
I agree with Veronica. The only way to keep peace is to remove the opposition, even we need to bust a few heads. That may not make sense to some, but to keep the peace you need to show power. If Saddam was not captured, he would eventually cause trouble with the U.S.’s allies or the U.S. itself. Just because he didn’t have WMD when the U.S. caught him doesn’t mean he wouldn’t eventually get them.
What that guy said ^ | | |
Veronica and Nimo, did you ever stop and think about who sold Saddam his WMDs?
Did you know that chemical and biological weapons that Saddam was suspected of having are alost impossible to store after 6 months of purchase?
Did you know that the only WMDs he did have were sold to him by both Britian and America?
Did you think that the strong armed neo-con tactics that the Bush admin is currently using to get its way will do America any good? I think the rest of the world may differ with you on that one…
The claim that “anyone who ‘messes’ with America should better watch out” is similar to the claim one would expect from a bully in a playground. I’m not trying to be offensive but wake up, America is not the only country on this planet, nor does it have the right to do what it pleases on the gut instinct of a terror threat. America may consume 25% of the worlds oil, (not to mention contribute the same percentage to global pollution) but it only encompasses 5% of the world’s population, so you should consider that next time you feel it’s America’s right to do whatever the fuck it wants to…
You should also take the time to consider the affects of global warming and how that will do, in the long, run, far more damage than any gruop of fanatics could possibly imagine. Though you haven’t brought up the environment issue, it seems hilarious to have such conservative views and yet have no apparant concern in caring for the well-being of this planet…
Hey Bill, Thank you for your comments on global Warming, I will how ever wonder were they came from. Yes I knew who sold the WMD. But I believe your information is out dated. We gave the weapons to him while we were fighting Iran and yes I know that was also a bad thing that the United States did but what country has not done anything wrong. But their were more recent information since then, Saddam has been caught buying Uraniun from Etheopia. No why in the world whould he need that?? And were is it now, in fact were is Saddam!!! Saddam LOVER!!!
What des Global Warming have to do with the Bush administration?If the U.S. is causing alot of pollution, it’s working on it. How can you be sure that the U.S. or Britain sold WMD to Iraq. The only country that i heard sold weapons of any kind to Iraq was France. Besides, if the U.S. or Britain did sell weapons to Iraq, it would have been to protect itself, after all, Iraq was an ally of the U.S. several years ago. If the U.S. feels that its former ally shouldn’t be allowed kill the innocent, then the U.S. should let them know. And don’t say that the U.S. is killing innocents. The Iraqis aren’t just in the streets aren’t holding toys…. they are real and they are pissed.
I’m only going to respond to Nimo’s post, as the post from Veronica was undoubtedly childish and immature. Whether she is a child is another matter, but I don’t feel I can get anywhere in a debate that puts a premium on objectivity and rationality (as a friend of mine put it), when insults are being hurled at me just because I don’t support the war on terror, nor the views that this young woman holds. Thus I will say no more and hope Veronica can do the same with regards to me.
Nimo, I’m sorry but I have already addressed all the issues you have raised so you shall have to refer to the previous posts I have listed. You said:
“What des Global Warming have to do with the Bush administration?If the U.S. is causing alot of pollution, it’s working on it.”
Well no it isn’t, hence the move backing out of the Kyoto protocol. If I had seen a substantial move from the Bush administration to clear up the pollution emissions, than I would say nothing but as I care for the environment as much as I care for the human race, I find it a particularly important and emotive issue.
Anyway, you said:
“How can you be sure that the U.S. or Britain sold WMD to Iraq.”
Because of a study conducted by the US governement. (See my post on March 28th 01:50AM)
You said:
“Besides, if the U.S. or Britain did sell weapons to Iraq, it would have been to protect itself, after all, Iraq was an ally of the U.S. several years ago.”
Nope, all the evidence suggests that the Brits and the Yanks sold weapons to provoke a war between Iran and Iraq – after Saddam stopped selling oil to the West. By the way, Britian and America sold WMD’s to both sides. (Refer to my post on February 20th 11:15AM)
You said:
“And don’t say that the U.S. is killing innocents. The Iraqis aren’t just in the streets aren’t holding toys…. they are real and they are pissed.”
I never once disputed that there is a significant amount of dangerous terrorists in Iraq who pose a threat to the Coalition forces, nor did I dispute the fact that Iraqi’s are real. I did however, use multiple sources to show that the U.S is killing innocent civilians and that there is relibale information showing that the US Marines did this, on purpose, and as a direct result of four merceneries shot dead in Falluja. In essense, it was vengence that took the lives of so many innocent Iraqi civilians. (see my post on April 21st 05:15AM)
I know you could possibly be offended by the blunt rebutt of your opinions but I would like to stress this is not in my intentions. You come across as a rational person and you seem able to comprehend my point of view without resorting to mindless insults. I ask of you to consider the evidence I have given you and post your response or alternative viwepoint…
I also strongly recommend you read the previous posts by both me and “Hurin” which differentiate with the views of both “Belka95” and “Read the facts”. While there are only a few posts from each person involved, it provides quite a comprehensive analysis of the state of Iraq, the reasons for and against the war, and the dealings of the governments involved as well as the UN. It may also resolve some questions that you need answering. It starts at March 23rd 05:45PM
Hey Bill, I’m sorry that I affended you and your idea’s. I got a little carried away with my anger. What I’m trying to say is I trust the American people, so I’m going to trust the person that the American people make my Commander and Chief. When people I have grown up with are out their dying for the iraqi people. I’m going to support them any way I can. I don’t want happing tothe Vietnam vets happing to my brothers and sisters in the war today. I don’t want them coming home, after facing what their facing right now, to people who spit on them and tell them what they were fighting for was a waste of time. When you saw your commrad next to you shot down it was a waste of time. Well I see I got carried away agin , well… I’m sorry-
“to keep the peace you need to show power.”
Nimo, I’ve just noticed a blatant similarity with one of your opinions and the words, or principle slogans, of George Orwell’s prophetic piece of literature, 1984. If you haven’t read it, read it. 1984 tells the story of an elite, minority group of people governing a future world and provides a very interesting and complex analysis of a universal, totalitarian regime. Ironically, some of the predictions that the book outlines have already came true in both contemporary Britain and America.
Most worrying of these, is undoubtedly the introduction of the domestic Anti-terrorist laws in Britain, which have illustrated the British and American government’s enthusiasm, as well as a general Western trend, to undermine freedom of speech and the fundamental rights of humans in the blind hope that this will deter or stop terrorism. Now despite the fact that I’m not claiming we are currently being fast tracked to the regime depicted in 1984, I am saying however, that there are significant undertones of Orwellian opinions in both the Patriot Act and the Anti-terrorist laws. What’s more, I have found these opinions are shared by an alarming amount of people, or better still, a significant minority and that the three slogans that capture the book’s ideology, “war is peace”, “freedom is slavery”, and “ignorance is strength”, are now principally, commonplace in contemporary Western society.
Nimo, I’m not necessarily saying you, or the significant minority are ignorant, nor am I necessarily saying you, or anyone else is a slave to the system, but I am saying your statement resembles the statement “war is peace” almost word for word. It’s also reasonable to assert that the majority of the pro-Patriot Act public would find nothing alarming about the statement “war is peace”. Along with there being an increasing amount of people expressing an Orwellian attitude, I also feel it is more likely that this now-common approach of Orwellian thinking has been normalized and represented in such a way as to appear acceptable by the influential, and essentially right wing, proportion of the mass media. Thus it also seems reasonable to assume that the mass media has adversely influenced your and others’ views on the ethics of Patriot Act – not to mention the various other draconian laws each Western government has passed in the past 4 years. With the help of a few influential politicians, it seems the mass media has a very profound, or at least, a more profound influence than I would deem beneficial, on an enormous amount of people.
If the notion of bringing in an equivalent of the anti-terrorist laws or the Patriot Act were discussed in parliament or congress 20 years ago, it would have been ridiculed, to say the least. Nowadays, I accept there is a different political climate; and overall, the world is a more dangerous place than it was twenty years ago, but the principle remains that governments can now (legally) use these laws to undercut the freedom of speech and the various human rights conventions that have defined civilised society from as far back as the days of the signing of The Magna Carta! There is no point in arguing that these laws are only there to protect the people when there is documented evidence already appearing in Britain, and I do not doubt that America has a corresponding problem, showing that police and members of the intelligence agencies have abused such laws. This point is: these laws stretch far and wide and theoretically can be used in a variety of situations, not only ‘terror’ threats; hence the abuse of the laws by the Metropolitan Police Force.
There is a law in Britain, for example, which enables police to enter a house if they have a reasonable suspicion of the owner being linked to or associated with known or suspected terrorists. America has possibly a more extreme equivalent. Though the law may seem reasonable at a glance, the negative implications of this law are massive. Already police have used this to enter people’s houses on the basis of them supposedly being a terrorist – yet where there has been no such evidence. There has been a huge rise in ineffective raids on the homes of people of Arabic appearance. And because this law can be applied to any crime, what’s going to stop the police entering any house, at any time, for no reason?
Here, an argument springs up that is probably one of the most important and foundational counter arguments for the Patriot Act and anti-terrorist laws but it is one that is flawed. The argument claims that ‘if you haven’t got anything to hide’, then ‘why be afraid’? Well, for the simple reason that if you use that flawed line of reasoning as a premise, then why not have cameras in our own homes displaying our every move? Why not have electronic chips monitoring our social habits? Why not have a thought police, as described in 1984, because, after all, if you haven’t anything to hide, then why you should you worry? As expected, I have yet to see an argument that successfully addresses this considerably significant point, without missing the basic issue I have raised: the laws are abused and will be abused more often, and possibly, in some cases, for the benefit of the government and the agencies working for it. Regrettably, this issue was not addressed in the run up to the passing of these laws and if it had been, I don’t think it would have raised more than a few eyebrows in both the Houses of Parliament and Congress.
All I ask of you, and anyone out there who shares a similar political and ideological standard, is to consider the ethics of what you believe in and what implications these laws have not just on our societies, but on the world as a whole. I also find it offensive, and precariously ironic, that the Bush Administration as well as the Blair Government, has passed such disrespectful and inhumane laws under the guise of ‘freedom’ and ‘liberation’ during the run up to this ‘war on terror’. To finish, I would like to use the film, Enemy of The State, as an analogy with which to describe how, if money and power got into the wrong hands, anyone could, literally, control an entire country. For some, this may seem a weak example and a weak argument, but it nevertheless demonstrates how, if one individual exercised enough influence, the world could change for the worse at a drop of a hat – regardless of the possibility of the film being inaccurate.
In the words of John Pilger: War is terror…
Apology accepted
I thought i’d just point out that though i don’t support the war, that doesn’t mean i don’t support the troops. After all, it’s the polticians who take us to war
If it isn’t already that obvious, I would just like to point out that the message that was written by “Bill” on May 3rd at 09:25AM, was not written by the same person who wrote all the previous messages under the name of Bill. Michael Hanscom can verify this – in case anyone believes I would say, “my mummy helps me poop” on a forum like this. And though my mummy did help me “poop” around-about 16 years ago; she doesn’t anymore, so if this man/woman (or child) should want to claim anything more about my toilet habits, could he/she please email me on the fake address I have supplied under my name.
[…]
Anyway, after coming back from a brilliant, bank-holiday afternoon – looking forward to criticisms, alternative viewpoints and opposing views – it appears the “why I hate George Bush” site has been taken over by children! Someone call the National Guard… nevertheless, I’m still expecting responses from a load of people so if they have anything they want to say: say it, and I’ll write back a.s.a.p. I look forward to hearing from you guys soon…
However, if you guys do receive a post supposedly written by Bill, which claims that “I am the king of the castle” or that you are a “liar, liar, pants on fire…” then take it not as an insult, rather a complement because do I find it really hard to engage in a meaningful conversation without there being pictures or games of some sort to keep my attention…
Nimo, Bill, Veronica: unfortunately, immature people trolling discussions is pretty much a fact of life on the Internet these days. I won’t always have time to police and delete every instance where they appear, so I’d recommend just sticking with the old standby of “just ignore them.”
It’s fairly obvious (to me, at least, as a reader) when it’s actually one of you as opposed to one of the trolls (you know, little things like staying on-topic and not babbling about ridiculous tripe), so I wouldn’t worry about someone actually confusing you with your impostors.
Sorry about these little interruptions — hopefully they get tired of their game soon enough. In the meantime, I’m glad you all are enjoying batting all of this back and forth. Thanks for continuing to drop by!
Hi Nemo, I find it equally offensive too; it’s such a shame that a rash of immature comments appear when some of us are trying to engage in a meaningful conversation; especially when someone new comes to the site. As Michael Hanscom pointed out, the best approach is silence, and even if we did debate with someone of that stage of maturity, I think we would end up degrading ourselves to their level of mindless belligerency. Ah well… As for my age, if you must know I’m 18, and in my first year of college. Bear in mind when I say college, I mean college in a British sense – and that is the equivalent of American High School. To the best of my knowledge, what the Brits call universities, the Americans call colleges, so thus in American terms, I would be approaching my final year of High School after the exams this September (and then heading off to University in roughly a year’s time). You may be wondering why I am as old as 18 and only in my first year of college (or the second last year of High School) but I was, in essence, a technical school drop out and left school early to go to work. Now I’m back in education and my writing needs a lot of work, so I come to these sites as much as I possibly can to help improve and develop my writing skills. Hence the huge posts! The irony of it is that these anonymous offensive posts are probably coming from people not much younger than me! It just goes to show what a little life experience does to you… Anyway, my life has improved dramatically since I returned to education and I have started enjoying the life of an intellectual, even though I can’t write like one just yet! You seem to want to know where I get this information on GBush and other Western politicians, so if you want a good source, and I mean a really good source, (and this goes for anyone) read “New Rulers of the World” by John Pilger. I have mentioned his name before, but I must stress that he is the one who provides me with such accurate and comprehensive reports on all the issues I raise. People are usually ‘gob-smacked’ by my comprehensive demolishing of their opinions and this, 9 times out of ten, results in them leaving and never to return! This is not in my intentions but when I argue with people of opposing views I can literally refer to this book, my new bible, and counter them almost immediately! And because Pilger writes his work like a University/College paper, and includes sources on almost every accusation he makes, you can’t really flaw him. You can also always check out what he is saying (as it is often too horrible to even imagine) and find out whether the source is reliable or not. And despite the fact that he does specialize particularly in Indonesia and Iraq, he has a very broad range of papers and articles and writes every week for various newspapers and a weekly journal “The New Statesmen”. If you want to read his work on the net then go to his website I hav included I include in my next post. You can even ask him questions, which he answers once a month (though unfortunately I cannot seem to open the question page and find these answers). Having said that, (and this goes to anyone else, though particularly Hurin and Michael Hanscom), you SHOULD buy his most recent book – as it includes the footnotes and sources, which are a wealth of knowledge in themselves. Regrettably, the website does not use sources in the form of footnotes, but it does sometimes include references in the articles. It goes without saying that Pilger is not my only source and I use a lot of other sources. Most of them are just found here and there on the net, however, I have an extensive collection of Trotsky literature at home which I have yet to fully read, or comprehend, for that matter – as Trotsky is a hard writer to understand. I also have read some Chomsky but I feel Pilger is better and more comprehensive. I would like also recommend the articles written by the former attorney General, Ramsey Clark, who wrote the article on Iraq history that I referenced to you in one of my posts. Clark also has written many other articles – all of which prove to be very interesting and informative (as he was employed by the US government, though it’s not hard to understand why he was ‘let-off’). Really, it’s a matter of picking your sources correctly and not relying on the pure gut level ideology that drives a lot of critics on both the left and the right wing. This is why I use Pilger for the most part of my posts as he includes sources and not just bare ideological convictions. I really do encourage you to read his work especially his most recent book. I don’t know if you can find him in American bookshops but he was a best seller here…
Michael Hanscom-
Can you not find the IP address of these trolls and block them from entering the site?
The IP (65.125.115.30) has been banned, and the comments deleted. I hate having to resort to that, but after a while…(shrugs).
Ah well, you did warn them more than once. They also disrupted a meaningful conversation – which, after all, is the purpose of this site – as well as impersonating all the people, including you, trying to engage in a meaningful conversation and in the process, offended a few people.
I know they were blatantly kids, and that, as one person put it, they were quite funny in a childish way, but they should have realized that the joke was funny at first, but after a while it got just a little too reckless. I also fear it may have revoked the coming of Nimo, seeing that he sounded quite annoyed by their behavior and possibly felt that he was being discriminated against because he was a new comer to the site.
Clearly, I feel that this should definitely be avoided at all costs and if you’re reading this Nimo, you’re more than welcome to discuss anything you want on this site. Me, Hurin, Michael and Rob (though he doesn’t come here much anymore) are definitely not going to do anything stupid or discriminate against you – though I certainly can’t speak for the others who come here.
Thanks Michael anyway, it was a most appreciated act of wisdom – despite the blocking of the child. As a result of there being no more silly comments by the bottom of the page, which could almost instantaneously discourage any person from even reading more than one post, hopefully, more mature and open-minded people will be encouraged to come here in the future…
About all this torture business: It makes me laugh (not to mention how it made me wonder whether he has actually wrote one of his own speeches), when GB compared himself, and the American military establishment, to that of Saddam’s regime.
I mean really, does anyone have the right to claim that we’re the true ‘freedom fighters’ because we’re not as bad as Saddam? What does GB think people living in Iraq feel about this? Does he think that because America prosecute their evil-doers (though funnily enough, I don’t think he’s used that specific term for the men and women set to be charged; it seems to be reserved exclusively for people of Arabic appearance) that makes them a better regime?
Does he think the 22 million people living in a starved and depraved country are going to somehow see this comparison in a positive light, and that they will somehow feel that their new rulers are any better than the previous ones?
What makes it worse is an assumption in all the daily newspapers in Britain, though I do not doubt there is a similar, if not, a more comprehensive assumption in America, that this torturing, raping, and illegal killing is something new. Bullshit! As John Pilger points out, torturing has been going on for centuries and has occurred as recently as in the Vietnam and Kenyan Western occupations.
For example, John Pilger writes: In Kenya in the 1950s, the British slaughtered an estimated 10,000 Kenyans and ran concentration camps where the conditions were so harsh that 402 inmates died in just one month. Torture, flogging and abuse of women and children were commonplace. “The special prisons,” wrote the imperial historian V.G. Kiernan, “were probably as bad as any similar Nazi or Japanese establishments.”
If you guys want the full article then go to:
http://pilger.carlton.com/print
I recommend you read it…
I beleive that bush himself or at very least rumsfeld is the architect of this inhumanity. I beleive I once posted an article about cruelty at Guantanimo bay on this article. Guantanimo was hand picked for that purpose precisely because the constitution does not apply thier. This whole business sickens and angers me. I have called the menace currently shrowding our Government with darkness a Nazi regime before. Looks like I was not exagerating as much as I would have liked to think. What makes me even more Ill is that the media covers it as though it was a defect of the people working at the instalation. While they failed to act on a moral imperative and refuse orders, I have to beleive that several MP reservists could not have cooked this up on thier own. Certainly if it bothered their commanding officers enough they would have been out of thier. According to my local paper (the Ann Arbor News) the red cross had sent memos to the white house about this as early as february. Bush knew. I beleive he or rumsfeld ordered it. It is just too easy to picture that evil little smirk of his as he masturbates, eyes fixed on the prostrate tortured bodies of all those “evildoers.”
Hurin-
Indeed I heard the same thought from a Pulitzer Prize winning America investigative journalist, Seymour Herch, on a programme the other night. Herch was speaking on a politically motivated review of the day’s news, Newsnight, when I was shocked to hear that he believes, and I do not doubt it is far from the truth, that there is a common lack of knowledge in the Bush administration of how bad the situation in Iraq really is.
What’s more, Herch also said that he had been in contact with America’s top military generals for the past year and that they had said, quite literally, that the politicians, namely Donald Rumsfeld, DO NOT CARE what is happening in Iraq and thus they remain practically blind to the everyday issues that are developing in the country. He also said that the generals have got to the point where they wouldn’t tell the politicians how bad the situation is.
As you pointed out Hurin, this mistreatment of prisoners goes deeper than just a fringe minority in the American army. You have to consider that it is regarded by Muslims across the world – that the stripping of men and the subjection of sexual humiliation to men in front of woman – is probably the most patronising thing one could do to a man of Muslim faith. And we’re supposed to believe that this was the brainchild of but a few, country-bred MP soldiers, who had the tenacity to catch this terrible event on camera?
Bullshit. This goes a lot deeper than that, and as Herch pointed out, this may go right up to the ‘top’. The uncovering of these photographs will indefinitely damage the coalitions ‘attempt’ to stabilise Iraq and by all means, is irreparable. I just don’t think that the Bush administration is fully aware of how serious this really or perhaps, they are ‘fully’ aware of this and are using the inevitable suicide bombings (not to mention the decapitation of Nick berg), terrorist attacks and all other related issues that follow becuase of these photographs for political capital. After all, this can only do two things: destabilise the coalition and make the world an even more dangerous place than it already is.
The irony is inescapable: the American and British soldiers who are in Iraq—so we are told—to “liberate” the country and bring “freedom” and “democracy” to the country are humiliating, violating, torturing Iraqis. To add one more layer of irony, all of this takes place in the very same Abu Ghraib prison, the site of some of Saddam Hussein’s worst atrocities. Similar atrocities, same site. Different abusers. And we act shocked and surprised that the whole world, including Muslims in this country, have not, do not, and will not buy this war as a “liberation.”
— Source:
http://www.tikkun.org/index.cfm/action/current/article/235.html
Two things:
First, my computer’s going mad so when i finished a paragraph on “dangerous place then it already is.” It was supposed to add another sentence: Just perfect for a right wing government intent on passing disrespectful and draconian laws.
Second, when i said Muslim faith, i meant to say Islamic faith. (nothing to do with my computer - rather my intellect.)
Since that guy came on the site and provided a very witty argument against mandatory abortion I’ve been surfing the net looking for pro-life and pro-choice forums. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, all the sites I have the pleasure of visiting have been excessively commercialized and run on a membership basis. Thus I can’t provide my point of view on either the pro-life or pro-choice sites unless I have a membership account and to acquire an account I have to give my email address – and this is something I can’t do because my computer is going bloody mad.
As I was saying, the arguments arising from the “pro-life” side are deeply emotional and based on a basic ideological principle – to preserve the teachings of their particular denomination of their particular church. Although there are some emotional arguments cropping up from the “pro-choice” side, mostly from women who have had a first hand experience of abortion, I find this side more objective and intelligible. When pro-lifers often respond to people with opposing views with comments such as “Babykiller”, I find it quite hilarious that they also claim they have the moral superiority, when in reality they are actually fighting against the fundamental right for a human being to make a decision about what they feel is best for them, their child and those around it.
Ironically, one of the most narrow-minded arguments coming from pro-lifers is the one that claims that they are actually ‘pro-life’. Bear in mind that parents are subjected to a lifetime of childrearing once they have had that child and if they can’t do this in the best way they feel possible, and they choose to abort for the benefit of the child, then surely they are the ones caring for the life of their potential child and not the so-called pro-lifers? To bring a child into a bad world, with a bad upbringing and a dark future is certainly nothing to do with being ‘anti-life’, rather to do rationality, reason, common sense an morality.
I haven’t the time to outline all the strengths and weaknesses of each argument but I will point out that the essence of the pro choice argument is this:
Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her body? - Ayn Rand
And I feel exactly the same way, so if anyone with an alternative view would like to rebut this statement then you know where to find me…
If anyone wants a good article that is outlining exactly what I have just said, though in a more succinct and coherent way, then go to:
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2404
What the fuck, it’s printed my post three times. Like is said: my computer’s going bloody mad.
Ah well, at least you got the message
George was playing golf on the day before the war was about to begin.. what king of perosn would do that. he is makes me sick to my stomach. so many kids are dieing while his resting in his fucken massion… i mean what did those innocent kids (who don’t even know what war is about) do to him. who ever voted for him must’ve been smokin weed. Robsix, you need to stop defending him and look at the facts because he sure doesn;t need your support because he dosn’t give a fuck about you and every other human. i know the truth hurts and shout out to every one whos hate the fuck head and the people who don’t you need to wake up and see the facts.
I absolutely abhor George Bush. I have never hated anyone this badly….I hate his administration and his supporters. Hate is a strong word, which is why I am using it. I have never seen such righteous, self-centered bullshit in my entire life. Why are people so blind? Why are they such complete f’in idiots? Why are they letting this tyrant take away our rights?
I don’t give a flying crap if he considers himself a good Christian. A) he’s not. b) he has no right to tell us what God thinks…. If he wants to be Christian, that’s fine, but I will not participate in his holy wars, nor will I allow this SCUM BAG to take away my rights as a women—my rights to birth control. I am a human being and I can make my own decisions. I control my body, not some shitbrained fascist redneck.
Yep. HE’S A FASCIST! Your rights are leaving you quickly. No more freedom of speech. No more freedom of religion…privacy….press…..you name it; it will be gone. No wonder everyone hates America now. George Bush is a tyrant trying to take over the world.
Why don’t the stupid asshole terrorists just try to kill him and his worthless administration instead of innocent people? And why doesn’t George Bush stop making them want to?
So sad.
Indeed, could there be any reason for anyone with a smidgeon of reason and logic to support GB? I think not…
When you consider both the domestic and foreign policies the Bush Administration has executed since its presidency, and the affect this has had on America as a whole, why so many, reasonably intelligent and, with some exceptions, rational people, could support GB, remains a mystery to me.
Having said that, I do think the media is key here, because how anyone could even complement the man, let alone support him, considering what he has done to the planet as well as America, is something that has to be put down to just a little “harmless propaganda”.
The man has done no good for his country – and I’ve heard he hasn’t succeeded in ONE of his domestic policies he promised to fulfil when he came to power – now why he is still in power, and as one person put it “Why he hasn’t he been impeached”, could be put down to any of the following:
Alas, if he gets re-elected this fall, which fortunately I don’t think he will, it will be a bad representation that the majority of the American populace will be giving to the rest of the world (presuming he doesn’t cheat this time, which is still a probability – but not one anyone has mentioned as of yet in the media hype during the run up to the election).
Having said that, exactly the same can be said of Tony Blair and the British public, but unfortunately, because of the laughable British political system, for me, and a lot of other people like me, there is no sensible person to take Blair’s place.
So, with a risk of sounding hypocritical, the only option I feel come election time will be not to vote and thus risk relegating myself to the same level of one of those people who is ‘not interested’ in politics.
After all, it would be, as some journalist described in a separate case, the choice between Coke and Pepsi.
I heard a very clever point expressed on a radio show dedicated to voicing the opinions of Muslims living in the UK. Three young university undergraduates felt that they no longer have faith in the judicial system in the UK – after the introduction of the “anti-Terrorist laws”. They explained that before these laws were passed, they wouldn’t think twice about reporting ‘a terrorist crime’, nor would they ever support a terrorist under any circumstances. Now though, they might hesitate when reporting such a crime in their communities, seeing that they were actually jeopardising the person’s life as there was a possibility it may be ruined, if they were imprisoned without a trial.
It was not that they tolerated terrorism and terrorist acts, nor was it that they felt sorry for any potential terrorist behind bars, but that they knew at this moment in time, on the basis of a measly “suspicion”, someone could end up in prison for life, without a fair trial. Thus the person they may report – who, it must be said, is likely to be completely and totally innocent – may have to endure a lifetime of incarceration, and possibly even abuse and torture, on the basis of a mere “suspicion”. This, the men argued, is why they no longer have faith in the judicial system and partly why the element of extremism in some Western Muslim communities, particularly in Britain, are frequently being overlooked.
Consider, for example, two average Muslim parents living in, say, an average British city. Suppose these parents suspected their children were involved in terrorism, but didn’t say anything because they knew this would lead to them being imprisoned for life – even if the suspicions were incorrect. Later on, the kids were found out to be involved in terrorism and took part in something like the Madrid bombing or 9/11. Now the reason the media would overlook as to why the parents didn’t ‘tell’, would be that the parents didn’t want their children being imprisoned for life, where there was a high risk that they could be innocent. I mean really, would you willingly ‘grass’ on your kids, knowing that they could be incarcerated for life even if they are innocent? Could you live with yourself if they received no trial?
Of course, you have to take into account other considerations when dealing with terrorism in itself, such as why it is now a common trend for many terrorist groups to prey on the young by seducing them into suicide bombings and all the stuff that comes with terrorism. The terrorist groups know the young are impressionable, and considering the daily news of torturing and prisoner abuse is plastered all over the front pages of every Western and Eastern broadsheet newspaper, the groups know it will no longer take much to corrupt young Muslim minds in both Western and Eastern societies. With a risk of sounding prejudice (which is definately not intentional), religion also plays a crucial role, usually backed up by the concept within Islam of an after-life, which encourages many young Muslim men into terrorism. But what is often overlooked is the relationship between the state and its communities – those same communities that could be harbouring ‘potential terrorists’.
The war on terrorism, as it is currently being run, leads to some Muslims feeling that it is purely based on a West versus Middle East campaign and thus they no longer feel oblidged to trust authority. It is only expected that some Muslims living in close knit, sometimes clandestine, community may be dissuaded from informing the authorities if they felt the person they would inform on may be imprisoned without trial, without justice: for life. These communities are isolated enough as it is; to expect them to trust the judiciary, after everything that has happened in the prisons and after all the mistruths that were proudly emphasised in the right wing media, like WMDs or Saddam’s Army, is laughable. The West with all its supposed wisdom seems to be failing to recognise this…
It is certainly something that the authorities will HAVE to recognise if they truly want to ‘win’ the war on terror (if there can be a winner in any war); and want to win the war against the extremist element in all Muslim communities, both abroad and at home. While I do understand it is necessary to imprison some, and only some people, without trial for a temporary amount of time, I don’t believe that even those malicious and totally insane extremists, should be subjected to life in prison without a trial, especially if it is counterproductive.
In the words of Hunter S. Thompson:
“Even a goddamned werewolf is entitled to a legal defence”
George W Bush is a reflection of the unconsciousness of humanity as a whole peoples, unfortunately. This has given us our greatest gift while being the proverbial double-edged sword, our most dreadful sin. Our gift is that this anti-Christ situation has pushed us into the consciousness that a World War III shall, without a shadow of a doubt, annihilate we the species, homo-sapiens and the universe only knows what will happen to its blessed child mother earth. Be that as it may, our sin we must heal is that we have wallowed in our tendency of laziness far too long. Too lazy to think individually, allowing our creative genius to be deeply asleep while using substances (even all the pharmaceutical so called social balancing drugs — anti-depressants — to make us all “normal”) and the consequence is that we fear our own power and therefore allow someone like GWB to trick us into a giant chapter of the Klu Klux Klan and take it into Iraq. This is bad enough, but then we all follow GWB as though he is the father, Moses, Charles Manson, the cult leader who hypnotizes us into believing he is the chosen prophet and he is directly told to bring God into every hearth and heart, “homeland security” and “patriotism.” GWB has missed the point. God or call this power by many names of respect, the universe, has never forced us to kill in the name of a creator. It is a contradiction in terms. Creation does not kill. It is cyclical in nature and evolves infinitely, but it is not a hungry ghost that can’t be filled. Furthermore, making people powerless is against the golden rule “free will.” Cheney, Bush (I put Cheney first because he is actually the man at the wheel), Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Rice — maybe Powell will get conscious after all — and the other died in the wool greed mongers have their destiny to fulfill just like Hitler and the Nazis, which is to be the alarm clock of the collective human psyche; but, they will recycle their energies and hopefully when they begin as a swarm of mosquitos on the lowest chain of consciousness the trip back up to another power point may or may not come to pass.
If you do not realize that GB is an idiot and retard then you have not been paying attention. The guy cannot give an impromptu speech. He can only do scripted speeches. He is a puppet. Whenever he had to speak spontaneously he sounded like a true fucking idiot, which he is. Do you really think that he is smart enough to run the country and understand complex issues when he graduated with a low C average??? You have to remember, he is the president of the US and should take full responsibilty for his actions, even if he is just a puppet. In case you are not familiar with his resume, here it is
RESUME
GEORGE W. BUSH Mon, 17 May 2004
EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE:
Law Enforcement: I was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine, in 1976 for driving under the influence of alcohol. I pled guilty, paid a fine, and had my driver’s license suspended for 30 days. My Texas driving record has been “lost” and is not available.
Military: I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL. I refused to take a drug test or answer any questions about my drug use. By joining the Texas Air National Guard, I was able to avoid combat duty in Vietnam.
College: I graduated from Yale University with a low C average.
PAST WORK EXPERIENCE:
I ran for US. Congress and lost.
I began my career in the oil business in Midland, Texas, in 1975. I bought an oil company, but couldn’t find any oil in Texas. The company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.
I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using taxpayer money.
With the help of my father and our friends in the oil industry (including Enron CEO Ken Lay), I was elected governor of Texas.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS:
I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil companies, making Texas the most polluted state in the Union.
During my tenure, Houston replaced Los Angeles as the most smog- ridden city in America.
I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas treasury to the tune of billions in borrowed money.
I set the record for the most executions by any governor in American history.
With the help of my brother, the governor of Florida, and my father’s appointments to the Supreme Court, I became President after losing by over 500,000 votes.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:
I am the first President in US history to enter office with a criminal record.
I invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of over one billion dollars per week.
I spent the US surplus and effectively bankrupted the US Treasury.
I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in US history.
I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.
I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.
I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the US stock market.
In my first year in office, over 2 million Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues every month.
I’m proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history. My “poorest millionaire,” Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.
I set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips by a US President.
I am the all-time US and world record-holder for receiving the most corporate campaign donations. My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends, Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in US History, Enron.
My political party used Enron private jets and corporate attorneys to assure my success with the US Supreme Court during my election decision.
I have protected my friends at Enron and Halliburton against investigation or prosecution. More time and money was spent investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair than has been spent investigating one of the biggest corporate rip-offs in history.
I presided over the biggest energy crisis in US history and refused to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed.
I presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history.
I changed the US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.
I appointed more convicted criminals to administration than any President in US history.
I created the Ministry of Homeland Security, the largest bureaucracy in the history of the United States government.
I’ve broken more international treaties than any President in US history.
I am the first President in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the Human Rights Commission.
I withdrew the US from the World Court of Law.
I refused to allow inspector’s access to US “prisoners of war” detainees and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention.
I am the first President in history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 US election).
I set the record for fewest numbers of press conferences of any President since the advent of television.
I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one-year period.
After taking off the entire month of August, I presided over the worst security failure in US history.
I garnered the most sympathy for the US after the World Trade Center attacks and less than a year later made the US the most hated country in the world, the largest failure of diplomacy in world history.
I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people), shattering the record for protests against any person in the history of mankind.
I am the first President in US history to order an unprovoked, pre- emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation. I did so against the will of the United Nations, the majority of US citizens, and the world community.
I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families - in wartime.
In my State of the Union Address, I lied about our reasons for attacking Iraq and then blamed the lies on our British friends. I am the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security.
I am supporting development of a nuclear “Tactical Bunker Buster,” a WMD. I have so far failed to fulfill my pledge to bring Osama Bin Laden [sic] to justice.
RECORDS AND REFERENCES:
All records of my tenure as governor of Texas are now in my father’s library, sealed and unavailable for public view.
All records of SEC investigations into my insider trading and my bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my Vice-President, attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review.
PLEASE CONSIDER MY EXPERIENCE WHEN VOTING IN 2004.
So, yes, I hate the SOB…
That’s one hell of a list. As i said in a previous post, “could there be any reason for anyone with a smidgeon of reason and logic to support GB?”
Anyway, I found this on a “George Bush IQ” site that will fit nicely into the education section:
Among US presidents who have run the country over the last 50 years, George W. Bush appears to have the lowest Intelligence Quotient (IQ). His IQ has proved lower than that of the average American citizen. According to the British press, researchers from the State of Pennsylvania have obtained the finding. Mr. Bush’s IQ makes up as little as 91 points, which is exactly half of his immediate predecessor Bill Clinton’s IQ (182 points). By the way, Mr. Clinton takes 1st place in the US president list by this parameter. Interestingly, Democrats prevail on the list. In calculating the IQ, the scientists analyzed the following indices: academic performance in school and college, independently (without anybody’s assistance) prepared publications, speech lucidity, and psychological parameters. The mean IQ value of man varies within the range of 100 points. Apart from George W. Bush, only only one ex-president, his father, Mr. Bush Sr, has not exceeded this level. Below are IQs of 12 US presidents, starting from 1945. Bill Clinton – 182, Jimmy Carter- 175, John F. Kennedy – 174, Richard Nixon- 155, Franklin D. Roosevelt – 147, Harry S. Truman – 132, Lyndon B. Johnson- 126, Dwight D. Eisenhower – 122, Gerald Ford – 121, Ronald Reagan – 105, George Bush – 98.
I suppose the results of the previous table are summed up in the following words of the commander in chief himself, GWB.
“As people do better, they start voting like Republicans… …unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing.”
While we are on the subject of Bush’s intellegence or rather lack there of, I thought that it might be worth pointing out that one thing that may independantly effect the president’s thinking. It is well known and equally well documented that Bush spent about 15-20 years of his life in a washed out alcoholic haze. I read an interesting article on Counterpunch.Org that was talking about the psychological effects that can be manifested on an addict via the drug to which they are addicted, to the end of showing such thought patterns in GWB. The mentioned effects included inability to perceive subtlety and complexity in situations and viewing the world in a clear cut black and white fashion. This should set off bells in anyones head who has ever listned to one of bush’s demented ramblings about the “evildoers,” or his patronizing “your either with us or against us” garbage. Bush may be inacting his policies under the assumption that arabs and paticularly muslims are inherently evil. An assertion that could have been informed early on by their differing religious beliefs (fundamentalists have the tendancy to attribute any differences of faith to the devil; I wittnessed this first hand while being evangelized by a woman who got very upset when I applied the word “Faith” to a religion other than hers, and promptly assured me that christianity was the only “faith”), and galvanized by 9/11. The end result of course being the political molotov cocktail that has presided over wars heavy on the destruction that include scant plans for reconstruction/nation building, the torture of untried arabs and others at gitmo and abu ghrabe (spelling?) and of course the no questions asked support of israel. Being that bush is also not that intellegent as Bill pointed out this basically shows that bush is obeying his gut impulses on a world he sees in black and white, with an intellect roughly equivalent to that of your average joe who cleans toilets for a living to reign him in. No wonder things are fucked.
Hurin-
That’s well put and if you could site the address to that article I would have a lot of fun reading it.
First and foremost, I think we have pretty much-rounded things up on the topic of hating GB on this, one of many, “hate bush sites”. We have possibly every single reason why not to support the man, largely thanks to the post by Dickweed on May 30thwhich brings together every piece of information we had posted in previous posts, in addition to a lot of other – how can I put it – interesting facts, explaining why this man is so bloody incompetent.
Secondly, I believe we have accumulated enough evidence to argue against the Iraq war and I will be constantly referring to this site for various bits of information on it. I also believe we have collected enough evidence to argue against fascistic, extreme right wing administrations. And even if we hadn’t, the pattern I notice when going on any site like this is that the typical right-winger, who is pro-war and pro-fascist, cannot maintain a meaningful and intelligent conversation without resorting to mindless insults (and the few that do tend to leave the site prematurely with no explanation). Of course by saying this I’m not, intentionally, implying the left have more intelligence than the right – one must be careful when assuming the left are naturally intelligent and the right are innately stupid. It would be more reasonable to assume that a person’s political ideology depends largely on their upbringing and not their intellect.
Anyway, thirdly, I think GB will not get re-elected this year, obviously not because of our conversations on this site (though it would be nice to think it was) but because of the terrible state of the country and the fact that anything and everything this man lays his hands on, with an exception to his business buddies accounts, turns to crap.Having said that, as someone on another similar site put it, “the man can’t get ‘re-elected’ because he was never elected in the first place, rather appointed by the supreme court and their judges who were all – the 5 out of 8 who voted for him anyway – employed by either his father or Regan.”
Well even if he does, God forbid, get “re-elected” this year, I’ll have to believe it’s the fault of a biased media with a few other things and not a great many people who seem to have no care whatsoever for the well being of their country…
Speaking of Bush, I thought you guys would like a few jokes i found on the net earlier. These could be added to the bush resume, who knows he may even take these as a complement -the man is that dumb.
First. How many members of the Bush Administration are needed to replace a lightbulb?
The Answer is SEVEN:
one to deny that a lightbulb needs to be replaced
one to attack and question the patriotism of anyone who has questions about the lightbulb,
one to blame the previous administration for the need of a new lightbulb,
one to arrange the invasion of a country rumored to have a secret stockpile of lightbulbs,
one to get together with Vice President Cheney and figure out how to pay Halliburton Industries one million dollars for a lightbulb,
one to arrange a photo-op session showing Bush changing the lightbulb while dressed in a flight suit and wrapped in an American flag,
and finally one to explain to Bush the difference between screwing a lightbulb and screwing the country
Second
Little David was in his 5th grade class when the teacher asked the children what their fathers did for a living. All the typical answers came up — fireman, policeman, salesman, doctor, lawyer, etc.
David was being uncharacteristically quiet, so the teacher asked him about his father.
“My father’s an exotic dancer in a gay cabaret and takes off all his clothes in front of other men. Sometimes, if the offer’s really good, he’ll go out to the alley with some guy and make love with him for money.
The teacher, obviously shaken by this statement, hurriedly set the other children to work on some exercises and took little David aside to ask him, “Is that really true about your father?”
“No,” said David, “He works for the Bush administration, but I was too embarrassed to say that in front of the other kids”.
Three.
Bush Haiku
This is a short poem made up entirely of actual quotations from George W. Bush. Washington Post writer, Richard Thompson, has arranged these, only for aesthetic purposes. A wonderful Haiku poem like this is too good not to share.
MAKE THE PIE HIGHER
I think we all agree, the past is over. This is still a dangerous world. It’s a world of madmen and uncertainty And potential mental losses.
Rarely is the question asked Is our children learning? Will the highways of the Internet Become more few?
How many hands have I shaked? They misunderestimate me. I am a pitbull on the pantleg of opportunity.
I know that the human being And the fish can coexist. Families is where our nation finds hope, Where our wings take dream.
Put food on your family! Knock down the tollbooth! Vulcanize society! Make the pie higher! Make the pie higher!
LOL
I’m doing a project on how much I hate George Bush right now, and this website was a lot of help. Although I am too young to vote, I will do what I can to get him out of office. It’s nice to see that so many people see through GW’s lies and bullshit.
some links from counterpunch and other sites for anyone interested
comparison:Bush, Bin Laden, Sharon:
http://www.counterpunch.org/christian05012004.html
political uses of god:
http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp04032004.html
Bush dry drunk syndrome:
http://www.inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=195_0_4_0_C
Bill- I looked for the story I was alluding to in my post but stopped around the two hour mark (Counterpunch keeps a huge archives of the stories it prints, but every story from 1999 - present is in there) so if you are still interested in this story I would check there. I beleive that the story was printed in 2002 or 2003. If not I find all of the above stories to be excellent critiques of bush’s mind set.
I’ve started reading the second article you posted and it looks good. Gota go though, finishing my exams on Monday - and this precious time i do have now, on a sunny friday afternoon, is going to be spent on excessive alcholic consumption.
Much as i would like to post my view when drunk, i think i might find - as i usually do - i’ll do something that i couldn’t believe i did.
Time to get ‘hammered’ - as we say here in Britain…
heh heh yeh we hate him over here in canada
I hate Bush so much! I never had signed up to vote, I thought I’d end up disliking any president anyway, so why vote, but recently I changed my mind. I fucking hate Bush so much that I registered to vote just so I could vote against him!
What do i think about George W. Bush (AKA- Dubya) he he he…where do i begin…shall i start with all of his lies to the entire United States Citizens…or maybe i should i begin with how he is connected with Saddam Houssain and Osama Bin Laddans Family…Sounds like we got a great President here. Ok.. WTF was he thinking when declaring war on iraq??? they didnt even have weapons of mass destruction, which president Dubya assured us they did, wow, what a fucking dumbass. Go back to your ranch in texas and have sex with a few cattle, and stay away from the oval office, which i have heard mooing late into the night, hint,hint. Also, he never would have the chance to screw america if it wasnt for his pussy ass brother who is governer of florida, and did u know that thousands of votes for Gore are laying in the river? And all those votes came from blacks in florida, hmmmmm? Die Biatch! whoops, lost control there. wow, what a racist queef sucking hick! and also maybe u heard about his pref. towards gays? he tried to totally ban it? now does that seem fair? i do respect him though, it does take guts to be the first illiterate, female president!
you people dont know a thing about the U.S. government or what george bush does, do your research and youll find out that he may not be the best economic president but he has certainly been the best military president, do your research and find out how long it took other presidents to fan out a full scale war and finish it. the fact is right now its basically over weve found saddam captured his head men and are restoring peace to the innocent people of iraq.
I think you should watch the news more often…
First of all if you think being a good military president is enough to be a good president you are wrong. Ask the thousands of people without benefits, on minimum wage or unemployed what they think is more important. You people have the biggest deficit ever right now, an economy that’s only upheld by huge government spending (which one day will have to be cut back due to the deficit) and exports and a Dollar that is almost in free-fall against the Euro (which is not particularly a sign of a “strong” economy). Bush might tell you otherwise but America can’t keep this up another four years without having a HUGE backlash in it’s economy. Even if Kerry does all the right things to help the economy and balance the budget America will have a hard time economically. And know that without a strong economy you can’t keep up a strong military. Look at Napoleon, the biggest military power of Europe… but he could only do that because he had to money to support it. Look what happened to him when he got a bit too greedy
Second of all you have a president who make America an Island in foreign politics… He’s alienated long time partners like France, Germany; offended the entire Muslim world and is fucking up the middle east with his Israel policy… so he can’t be called a good Foreign Affairs president either. Not to mention that he made the U.N. weaker then ever.
Third… I thing his “glorious victory” isn’t that glorious after all…. I doubt the fact that he “finished” that war… I think the war has just started. It’s been over a year and he has yet to establish security, safety and a democratic government in Iraq, And it’s obvious he isn’t succeeding in that on his own, now he is pleading for the U.N to come help him out. Besides… I don’t find invading Iraq that big a deal. Here is a country that came out of a long standing war with it’s neighbor Iran, got bombed to the stone age by america, then had over 10 years of UN sanctions opposed, got bombed again and then finally got invaded by a force 200 times more powerful. It’s like a sumo wrestling team bullying a kindergarden class out of their lunch money. Not THAT impressive… keeping the peace… nog THAT would have been impressive
Just my humble opinion
I have many comments on the way Bush runs our country that lying back stabbing son of a bitch. I have registered to vote just to get his dumb ass out of office. He never deserved to be their in the first place. In my opinion we were almost out of debt he put us futher in debt then we’ve ever been. He has also put us in a war that never had to be. Ya I mean there are reasons that he could have done it but he did it all for the wrong reasons all together. We had so many people die over there that its not even funny. Then to top it off when he did send over our troops they didn’t only kill parent’s but they killed children we’re talking about kids that aren’t even 2 years old say’s my sorces (that must not reveal). If Bush is relected he might as well resign cause he will not make it in there for very long, before he’s wishing that he was no longer there. I know more about this issue then what I have just stated and if any thing that important comes up, I will for a fact inform you of my new information containing that back stabbing fucker that Bush is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
David, without ranting or getting hysterical, let me offer you a few questions to ask yourself concerning Iraq and the war on terror. First, what was our motivation for entering the war? We were first told that saddam had WMD and a nuclear program, then when this dissolved it became about Democracy, and freedom for Iraq. Is the risky bussiness of trying to set up a democracy in an impoverished and politically unstable area worth the lives that it has and will continue to take? Secondly we have heard much about how Iraq was tied to al-queda thus making it a ligitimate theatre of the war on terror, however it looks increasingly like Dick Cheney is the only one who is able to see them. The bipartisan 9/11 comission has not upheld these links. If infact these links do exist then why are they so hotly debated years after the fact, and why can’t satisfactory proof be found to support them if the do exist? Finally, if nearly half of the population (some polls have even shown upwards of of 50%) is still not convinced that the war in iraq was a good idea, then was it really worth deverting the resources from the war on terrorism, which pretty much everyone can agree is a good idea? What i see from your post is a limited sense of the issue as it stands. You simply assert that the president has handled Iraq well apparently on the grounds that you see the war as being over and being short. You fail to ask if it was worth it, or if we are now any safer than we were before (and with terror warnings floating around based on three year old information this would be a tough assertion to support). It seems to me that most of the people who post on this site are getting at this issue in particular when they talk about the war in Iraq. When you feel as I do that we had no bussiness in Iraq in the first place, then the presidents handiling of the war becomes pertinent only as basis to calculate the damages of a horrible and bloody mistake.
ps, I welcome any rebuttal that you or anyone else can furnish
I would love to argue all day with Bush supporters, but frankly I’ve grown tired of it. I believe that Bush could bankrupt the country, start World War III and exterminate a whole race of people, and Bush supporters would still think he’s the best thing since sliced bread. Truth is, Bush Sucks, big time. My hate for this evil bastard is about as deep as the conservatives contempt for Clinton. And for some more truth…the whole Iraq war is a bunch of made up shit. There was no WMD there, please don’t argue this anymore. Second, Saddam Hussein was an evil piece of shit, but it did not stop Dick cheney and Haliburton from doing business with Iraq in the 1980’s. And if human rights was a reason for going to war, why stop now? Where was the intervention in Rwanda, Chile, Angola..etc. Our concern for other’s welfare is a feel good thing. But in reality, the preservation of human rights is a sidebar to other motives such as economic gain. Especially when there is nice supply of oil and a great opportunity for no bid contracts for reconstruction (Haliburton, Brown Root Kellogg, Bechtel). So, Bush Lovers, spare me the WMD, Saddam was evil shtick..it’s old and ya know it. The whole thing, when you really look at it, boils down to a few folks at the top making a Big Buck. As for Bush being a Christian, hmm..whatever. Paint yourself a Christian and you can have all the votes down south and parts of the west. Somebody tell me something Bush has done that is remotely Christ like. Before I get flamed by a bush loving retard, know this: I served in the US Army for four years, graduated college, have a full time job. Oh yeah, I love the US, and I’m not a communist or a liberal…so hard to stereotype me I guess. But since I disagree with our moron commander in chief, I guess that makes me un American.
I never realized how many people can be controlled by fear. This GWB is the worst thing to ever happen to the USA.
Every single post in here is so dumb. All I’ve seen is “I hate Bush because hes a stupid retard” Does anybody actually have some real resons for hating bush? There is not one thing he should of done differently.
Bush Is Awesome!!!!!!
(goodness people get a life!)
Katy- here is a short list of reasons I dont like bush that have nothing to do with his intellegence or lack there of. 1)He squandered the unique sense of unity (national, as well as a sense of sympathy from the world at large) that followed 9/11 with divisive policy and hawkish “your either with us or against us” sentiment 2)He did a botch job on afghanistan- cutting and running after a very short reconstruction and now warlords control much of the afghan countryside as a result. 3)After afghanistan Bush rushed to Iraq on a contrivesial case made from dubious intellegence. though his case did not sell well amongst our allies, Bush attacked anyway only to find the WMD absent and a hightened sense of antipathy from the world communtiy. 4) he was deluded enough to beleive that the reconstruction of Iraq would be a trivial matter, and as a result the reconstruction became a disaster (this is the reason George H.W. Bush stopped at the border of Iraq in desert storm) 5) Bush has presided over a sluggish economy and booming deficite. While his influence for the economy is debatable the roll of his tax cuts (which disproportionatly benefit the top 2% of americans) in the $450 billion deficite is not. 6)Bush vacationed the full month leading up to 9/11 disregarding info that could have prevented the attack 7)Bush has done everything in his power to roll back pollution controls, including raising the allowable levels for mercury emissions (mercury is deadly poisonous and especially dangerous to children) 8)Bush hides behind Christianity while blatantly disregarding the golden rule “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” 9)Bush put an end to creation of new stem cell lines which provide valuable prospects new medical technology such as the ability to grow organs in a laboratory that would eliminate the need for organ donors. This is the moralism of a man who as governer presided over more executions than any other in the history of his state (and i beleive the nation at large).
While one could easily come to the conclusion that Bush is stupid or amoral based on the assertions I have just made, my judgements about bush come from assertions such as this and not secondary conclusions. Its just more fun to rant about bush being an imbecile. If you would like to argue any of these points with me I welcome it, however be warned; I am very well informed.
Hello everyone
Id just like to make some points.
Why is America OK with another rich white male president?
Why is America OK with a man whose father was president and whose brother is the governor of florida? Sounds like royalty to me
Is it unreasonable to think that John Kerry (or probably several million relatively intelligent americans) could do at least an adequate job in this apparent “war on terror”? What makes Bush so special? Is it the fact that he was a lousy student & failed business man? Does anyone really think he should be trusted to make any decisions?
Why is everyone so enamored with Bush’s apparent “down to earth, working man appeal”? He’s never been in a position where he’s worried about money in his entire life.
Why is America OK with a two party system where the essence of either side’s argument is how much the other side sucks?
Is it OK that so many children are getting left behind?
Is homelessness OK?
Why is the deficit so large?
Why do you think everyone in the world hates us so much?
There’s really too much to put down here, but I think what I’m trying to say is this:
Christians are fake. Capitalism is terrible. George W. Bush is a bad president. America has no hope. A vote for Bush is the vote of fear and the oppression of others. Wait for a big I told you so in about 4 years.
You and your pink people are the reason I pray ( and I’m not even friggin religious!) George Bush “steals” this election too.. or maybe you want to be boinked hard in yor butt by kerry the french and the U.N. a non-vote for bush is a vote for the U.N that is some scary shit wake up. Bush is the only President who has enough guts to run this country and face the fundamentally morally ideologically WRONG in the world and win..do you really not understand the reasons we are finally at the fore front of this war with muslim extremism? are you that incoherent and blind that you think the reason we are at war with extremism is merely because we are at war? No we are at war with this monster because of the very liberties we HAVE not the ones we dont. you people talk this talk of The president taking away civil liberties.. wanna know which civli liberties i feel robbed of? the civil liverty of getting on a plane and flyint to california without having my ass blown up because a typhoon muslim extremists view my country as godless because of the homosexuality, divorce rate, child molestation numbers, girls and boys being raped, in this country. The fact that i own a home is considered godless to these people wake up. Spain had the best economy it has had in the last 100 years and these monsters blow up a train and its back to starving socialist party bullshit…. comical.. is all I have to say about your essay.. typical left wing generalization spewed out of from the dark underbelly of the MTV monster…. way to go!.
god please save my country from these idiots!! LMAO
ARE you asking or are you telling? because those question marks look very inviting ……
Hello everyone
Id just like to make some points.
Why is America OK with another rich white male president?……Because nobody cares how much money anyone has anymore? ……IF kerry got in maybe he can buy some phone cards for soldiers with his billions!!!
Why is America OK with a man whose father was president and whose brother is the governor of florida? …..Maybe because they are elected and people like them! “Sounds like royalty to me”…… well its not. its called democracy
Is it unreasonable to think that John Kerry (or probably several million relatively intelligent americans) could do at least an adequate job in this apparent “war on terror”?… OH GOD YES VERY UNRESONABLE TO THINK THAT A MAN WHO DOESNT KNOW WHETHER TO WIND HIS ASS OR SCRATCH HIS WATCH ON THE ISSUE SHOULD TAKE IT OVER.. most unreasonable… What makes Bush so special? …. Hes adorable. Is it the fact that he was a lousy student & failed business man?… nope hes cute Does anyone really think he should be trusted to make any decisions?… raises hand he has done extremely well thus far… except on immigration amnesty which i will try my hardest to understand but other than that….yea i like him.
Why is everyone so enamored with Bush’s apparent “down to earth, working man appeal”? ….Because he is real and approchable and tells it like it is, and becuase before PBush we were all lead to believe we as a nation only had a problem with the environment and where to hide our illegal cuban cigars…. He’s never been in a position where he’s worried about money in his entire life. …..so what? …I’ ve never had a problem with getting on an airplane until 911 which btw is the lefts “lets appease other nations and try not to offend anyones religion or civil liberties” fault.
Why is America OK with a two party system where the essence of either side’s argument is how much the other side sucks? …I have a bitg problem with it BUT the other side sucks so much more than PBush im praying Bush can win oh btw.. polls show he is..WHEW!
Is it OK that so many children are getting left behind? ….YES because the fundamental mess clinton left of the edcucation system for eight years after pandering to the black vote on that very issue will take years to fix..120% increase on ed by republicans sice that admin is a friggin good start POOR KIDS goo thing they have PBush to help them out..
Is homelessness OK?… what do you think? of course not.
Why is the deficit so large? …because we are at war. let me ask you this why is it so large when he supposedly had this HUGE surplus?
Why do you think everyone in the world hates us so much?….because we are at war. nobody likes the idea of war.its uncomfortable for people.. but don’t worry they will eventually see the light and the wont hate us so much..
There’s really too much to put down here, but I think what I’m trying to say is this:
Christians are fake…. probably….. religion what ever denomination is a brainwashing facade….. Capitalism is terrible. NO not really and it you think so move to Bangalore or N korea with Micheal Moore and try to maintain your comfy weight. George W. Bush is a bad president. no hes really not. but I guess its the “COOL” thing to say now.. America has no hope. I have more hope now that ever its not just about america anymore. A vote for Bush is the vote of fear and the oppression of others….. OPPRESION!?!?!?! LMAO your reaching here sweety Wait for a big I told you so in about 4 years. ……yeah I told you that you people would begin to see the light where they are all wrong about being apologists for terrorism.
No time for a big response to this nonsense right now but just one point… If George Bush really tells it like it is the why dont you ask him where he was in 1972? or Why are we in Iraq? After the WMD thing dissolved it all became about this bringing democracy to an oppressed country bullshit. More later.
as if you even have a substantial response….. judging by and reading the remarks you have previously posted I can guarantee you that you do not have anything substantial to say or worthy of my reading it for that matter.
As if you would know… I am a senior in college and have better things to do than to sit around all the time arguing with an imbecile who defends bush… Because he is cute and the UN is evil? I hope you realize that i am lowering myself by dignifying this shit with a response in the first place. If you have any actual points or responses why dont you make them and stop insulting my intelegence. If you knew anything about history you might realize that the UN came about as a means to prevent future world wars after the close of WW2. People realized that WW3 could destroy the World and wanted to show some actual cooperation to prevent that. Now arrogant shitheads like Bush are degrading that in favor of this American Supremacy bullshit which you seem to love. The bottom line is that after 9/11 we could have used the UN to help us fight terrorism but Bush squandered that option with Iraq. He is now loosing the war on terrorism as 2003 saw the largest number of terrorist attacks ever recorded. Do you ever even read the news paper? or is all your info streight from rush limbaugh? As for the diminsished surplus you yourself point out that a great deal of the money is going into Iraq. That being the case what kind of sense does it make to enstate major tax cuts? Reagan also tried tax cutting as a means to stimulate the economy, however he was forced to repeal them when the deficite started booming. Bush will not do this and seeks to make them permenant. In the case of education the no child left behind act is failing because it is underfunded and so the standards are raised on schools who have no aid to help them improve. This once again goes back to the tax cut, liberal presidents used to get flack for being “tax and spend presidents” bush is a big spender, however his privelaged life leads him to beleive that money is not a reality and his daddy will bail him out when he’s fucked up this bussiness venture. Thus he spends money he hasnt even got. As Iraq is conserned neither you nor the administration has furnished a reason for being there worth 1000 soldiers lives, and if you actually believe this “Exporting Democracy” bullshit then answer me this, why did we pick Iraq? Iran, North Korea, China, Saudi Arabia, and many others have dictators guilty of human rights violations; Iran and Saudi Arabia both have ties to the 9/11 operations and al-Queda. North Korea has been largely ignored by the administration, and this country has the capacity to produce nuclear weapons, they also need money. I would love to see the look on your face when the city your beloved house is in is vaporized by a nuke that al-Queda bought from North Korea while Bush was busy democratizing Iraq. Maybe that is an “I told you so” you should worry about. As for your claims that I will see the light when things are all better and bush has made it that way. I however am not worried because no actual FACTS point to world affairs proceding in that direction. Finally here is a list of points you passivly dissed but couldnt bring yourself to respond to. Maybe they are “beneath you” or maybe you are just not up to making a counter argument.
1)He squandered the unique sense of unity (national, as well as a sense of sympathy from the world at large) that followed 9/11 with divisive policy and hawkish “your either with us or against us” sentiment 2)He did a botch job on afghanistan- cutting and running after a very short reconstruction and now warlords control much of the afghan countryside as a result. 6)Bush vacationed the full month leading up to 9/11 disregarding info that could have prevented the attack 7)Bush has done everything in his power to roll back pollution controls, including raising the allowable levels for mercury emissions (mercury is deadly poisonous and especially dangerous to children) 9)Bush put an end to creation of new stem cell lines which provide valuable prospects new medical technology such as the ability to grow organs in a laboratory that would eliminate the need for organ donors. This is the moralism of a man who as governer presided over more executions than any other in the history of his state (and i beleive the nation at large).
Hey, sorry about the second post which is identical to the first, i was the either the website or my computer was behaving abnormally and I didnt know that the first got posted.
Hmm… Your late dorian, No more trite personal attacks about how superior you are to me? Or is it that you are busy trying to figure out how to paste a sound bite into the comments box at this site?
Why I hate George Bush so much: He lies to us. However I’m not sure why he lies and I really have not have had enough time to find out if he really is lying or not. So tuff to figure out, being an outsider. That smirky sniffly smile thing. If I was like that I would just quite being like that. What a turn off. I’m so glad I’m not like that. No WMD. God knows this is the biggest scam of the century. I hope they never find those WMD that Saddam used on his own people. Everybody knows that we did’nt need to invade Iraq, Saddam would have never used WMD if we would just have left him alone. Stupid Bush, no wonder our economy sucks. However, it seems just like when Clinton was in office, but it could be better if Bush was back on his ranch. 9/11 and corporate scandel was all part of Bush’s plan to torment our economy so that a few of his buddies could get rich. That’s right. People are dying while Bush is lying. We need someone to tell us the truth and prevent all this needless killing of innocent people. No more passiveness or capitulation to evil people. We need more eonomic sanctions. Maybe if we give them money to build electric plants and hospitals they will stop killing innocent people. Rich Bush and his Daddy. I hate the rich and I hope I never get to be like them. However, I don’t hate money, I wish I had a lot of it. In fact, if I had a brain that could invent something really neat and make me a lot of money I would be a happy person. And so would everyone that I gave a job to that worked for me. But I still hate rich people. I would’nt hate myself though if I was rich. Because I would’nt be like those other rich people. Heinz Catsup is my favorite though. Kerry is not rich like Bush, I think. He’s not very rich, I think. I like Heinz catsup though.
I can now see that during the months I’ve been away, the opinions expressed here by many individuals have not exactly changed for the best; rather, in my opinion, they have increased in stupidity and in quantity. For the love of God people! I was unaware anyone here could actually be so stupid as to admit electing a president based entirely on the fact that he’s cute. Cute?!!
Pardon the forthcoming insult, but it beats me how someone could actually be so dreadfully shallow and at the same time have the resolve to surf onto this site – which was started, for all intents and purposes, to discuss politics in a rational and sensible manner – and give mouth to their ridiculous views. In my honest opinion, a person of that clear maturity should be banned from voting (it’s a thought
or at least admit to the fact that they have neither the slightest clue about contemporary politics, nor the ability to discuss it in a place like this.
Oh, and keep up the good work Hurin. I see you’re doing a fine job of smashing the little respect that remains of the Republican Party. I suggest you go to politicalcrossfire.com for a more, hmmm, mature debate and a more, hmmm, mature opponent.
Thanks for the tip Bill, I may have to check that out someday soon. As you mentioned there really are no more Republicans capable of any kind of extended rational argument dropping in at this site anymore, and I am getting rather sick of the dorian types who drop a few bizzare and illogical areguments (I was also quite disturbed by the “Bush is cute” argument) insult my intelegence without telling me why they think I am wrong and then leave. As the election approaches (less than three weeks) i can only hope that Idiots like that are not in the majority at the polling places in my country come Nov. 2. Well thanks again, and best of luck with your neo-con policy bashings.
I hate George Bush because he is a fucking peice of shit moron, who can’t realize that he is being manipulated by his fascist Administration.
Why do I hate Bush? Where do I start? Okay, in no particular order…..I hate the way he behaves like he’s reading from a comic book. “Axis of evil”. “Evil doers”. “That guy tried to kill my daddy”. What grown man says that? His actions, in my opinion leave many feeling excluded. When he addressed the group of well-to-do folks telling them they were the “Have and have mores. You are my base”. They way he pounds his faith on us. Not all Americans are of the same faith. He is forgetting about separation of church and state. When he ran for Governor against Ann Richards who appointed maybe 4 known gays in hundreds of appointments - suddenly flyers were put under windshield wipers of parked cars in church parking lots with scare tactics about homosexuals being placed in high positions. In addition, his campaign was very successful in convincing everyone crime in Texas was going up when in fact it was going down - smear campaign worked. He beat out Richards. I felt many similar things happened in the 2004 election. For instance, I’ve found things on factcheck.com that state that the Bush campaign gave out ridiculous, unbased charges in regards to Kerry and his tax voting history. Many believed the accusations even though Bush campaign later admitted faulty statements. Also in this election, in my opinion, the homophobia angle was again used. Rove is the strategist again using what worked for him in the past. They used the evangelical vote and fears about gays and gay marriage. I’ve read many got calls stating Kerry was in favor of gay marriage although he is not. The things I am hearing from Bush voters is scary! So much religion and so much gay bashing and how Bush is going to set things right. I see the guy from 700 club endorsing Bush saying Bush would advance their goals. Robertson(?) from the 700 Club put up an 800 republican number for people to call into. I think there is a real danger for the church to play so much of a role in our government and for govt. to get their agenda from church. He talks about less government, but then why would I want less government, but a government that teaches me “morals”. I don’t need Bush who didn’t quit drinking till after FORTY to tell me how to live. Nor do I need the ticket of THREE DUIs to tell me how to live. I read that Loyalty Oaths were required from people before they could hear him speak. If you were not willing to give out all your personal info., sign a pledge of allegiance to him and allow your name to be used declaring support, then you could not hear him speak. So, you either agree with him or you do not get in. People have a right to hear the govt. reps talk about the issues without having to sign oaths beforehand. I think his administration is encouraging bigoted views and trying to lead us into the wrong direction when it comes to civil liberties. Hear enough yet? I haven’t even started on the issue of Iraq, but I’m tired of typing!
Well here we are, the election has come and gone and the unthinkable realized. The majority seems to have upheld MaBus Bush and his gang of thugs. Ah america… Land of the stupid home of the depraved. I beleive that this will be my last post on this site, I no longer have time and, I no longer feel it matters that much. Either our country will survive for more years of a retard leader backed by antichrists, or we wont, and either way I have better things to do than spend what may turn out to be the last years of my life lecturing republican nincompoops. If you were stupid enough to vote for that motherfucking pseudo moralist pseudo christian pseudo leader than please do us all a favor and join the army or marines. Iraq is a shit hole because of people like you, and if you are willing to uphold a leader who would make such a mess, you deserve to help clean it up. Please help us repel the ranks of Al-Queda and affiliate organizations, that have grown under bush’s foreign policy, because this is YOUR presidents fault. You have made your fire now go and burn in it. Do it because neither the UN or Nato will. Do it because we no longer have allies willing to give us more than symbolic contributions of troops. Do it because the world and the country are now being gutted by that texas crackhead you would call a president. And finally do it because you symbolize everything wrong with america, everything that caused it to mutate from a country that i knew and loved to an unrecognizable theocratic home of the flag-wrapped antichrist, and the FEWER there are of you the BETTER. You have made this country what it is. Now go be a the patriot that Bush never was and DIE FOR IT!!!
well said
LET THEM HATE: SO LONG AS THEY FEAR!
actually, I like Bush. Most of you sound like babies.
I own my own company. I create jobs for employees who have families, homes dreams, and incidentally pay taxes. Yes I think the world is an unfair place as it has always been. But There will always be those who react to their situation and those who are do nothing. if any of you can say the same… touche.
I guess that’s what being a republican is all about.
I’m almost as angry at the stupidity of my fellow countrymen as I am at Bush. I can’t believe how many people believe Iraq was responsable for the World Trade Center. People forgot that Bush sold the war on womd’s and a terrorist threat. Now these same idiots that bought that are saying we are over there to liberate the Iragi’s from Saddam. Are they that easily swayed by the media. Speaking of wich why are they trying to shut down public broadcasting. Is it because the truth is a little frighting. I found that people are so ashamed they were fooled that won’t say the war is a bad idea even now. Maybe they really have forgoten and believe the lies.
welcome to facist america, well the first amendment,lets throw that out the window. lets get rid of the constitution altogether. Or and here is irony, lets leave it open to “interpretation” much like the bible and the two shall become as one in this most sacriligious of marriages to go forth and proliferate W.M.D.s, that do not exist. For God said let there be life. Poof.
He is not my president.
Or and here is irony lets leave it open to “interpretation” much like the bible and the two shall become as one in this most sacrilegious of marriages to go forth and proliferate W.M.D’s,that do not exist. For god said let there be life. poof.
hi,
At first, i want to apologize if i make any mistake, cause english isn’t my mother language, i live in Belgium. I don’t really want to say anything about the political situation in the usa, because, at first i don’t live in america, and secondly, i don’t know enough about it to have strong and founded arguments. What i can say, is that i’ve been really surprised when i read the comments. Surprised, because, here in europe, we tend to have a really bad image of the american people because of gwb’s political actions, especially the war in irak. Every single educated person is ‘against’ america. And, i don’t think we here have the right to judge u people. But, the truth is, when i look at television, i realise we are never told american people protest against gwb, american people are showed as clueless persons, defending their president, loving their nation, caring only for making money, and war, and going to church on sunday morning. So the medias really manipulate us and the thing is i’m really glad to see u people care about the political aspects of your country, that u debate, you are curious and intelligent. It is too easy to categorize american people as idiots because some of them voted bush.
I don’t like people who don’t qualify their thoughts, i want to beleive that in anything and in anyone there’s a part of ‘good’ and a part of ‘less good’ ( i don’t like the word evil, life isn’t like an hollywood movie) and the comments i read made me realize i’m right. So go on caring for things that matter. Help me be a little proud to be human.
Again, i’m sorry for my bad english.
bushites -
evangelical capitalist pirates marching to utopian trotskyism!
george w bush is the most racist twit have ever seen he trained al qaida then decided to snoob shit in there faces afterwards usa and uk should stand out of orther countrys affairs,the main reason why they want to stay in iraq the british and usa soldiers is because we want there country and having a great laugh over ethnic cleansing while at the same time.i personally accept the al qaida decision they want there own ppl in there country they dont need us racist uk folk and usa to take away there pride,so yeah bush trained the al qaida and then started making wars with them so i accept the al qaida killing uk and usa folk because we deserve it for us being ignorant to the ethnic community,simple reason why they will stop killing us is when we listen to the al qaida ,eny al qaida ppl reading this you have my understanding
The man represent everything in a politician that is bad. He shows no interest in any problem but what he thinks. He reminds me of a little boy who is spoiled and has never had to work.
I have a solution for the war in Iraq: bring back Saddam Hussein. We have him in custody. We could offer him a deal he couldn’t refuse: cooperate or die. We could tone him down a bit and make sure he more or less supports what we’re trying to do in Iraq. We’re not going to have any success with the current government. They’re weak and ineffective and now they want to turn Iraq into an Islamic state. This is hopeless. But with Saddam Hussein back at the helm there will be no Islamic state. Order will be restored. The US can leave. We put him there in the first place—why can’t we put him there again? PS I hate GWB too!
An afterthought… To make sure Saddam gets a good start we could give him Karl Rove as political advisor. Now that’s a marriage made in heaven!
If all these Libs think that ousting SADDOM was wrong why don,t we let im go and put him back in power?
they should rename the Dem party to the anti tolerance hate party. that all i hear from libs is i hata, i hate
Hi DonE! I’m proudly a liberal, and we are the future. It’s incredibly amusing that you call the Democratic Party “the anti tolerance hate party.” I suppose you think that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and your Fox News buddies only speak about love and tolerance? Give me a break. Not only do they spew their venom every single day, they never tell the truth. Also, you need to learn to put a sentence together. Come on now, you’re really George W. Bush.
Donnie is right, DonnE is WRONG.
Well.. It’s hard to believe a man that is hated by %90 of the world population could be re-elected as the president of the most powerful and respected (well, used to be respected) country in the world. It is kind of weird how these things can happen. I believe that all this time he setted up the election, even from the 2000 election.. His father’s a crackhead.. What makes him anything different.. well, if its not true and if he won the election fare and square, I hope the U.S citizens will open their eyes and see that their president is a big asshole and would not make the same mistake the third time…
You are very uninformed about one thing. You are not in the minority when it comes to hating that evil and stupid man. So many people hate him, as we do, but they do nothing about it. My theory on that is what can we do? We first need to band together. But then what? What do we do? Any ideas because I would love to do something to get him out of office. I hate him more than I can convey in words!!!!
You are all wrong. Fuck Democracy, fuck Anarchism, fuck Facism, fuck Nationalism, fuck Liberalism, fuck your beliefs, fuck your opinions, fuck your desicions, fuck your hate, fuck your fuck, fuck McDonalds, fuck America, fuck Al Quaida, fuck George Bush, fuck the Uno, fuck the military, fuck YOU ALL TOGETHER!! Dumb Chimps. “Everybody is willing to fuck the world with his fist and to lick his fingers clean after it!”
Oh, the comment from Rob is rich:
“FACT: difference between Democrats and Republicans is this- Democrats will always vote PARTY no matter what! Republicans will support their party, but will not vote party if they feel that their “guy” is not a good choice!”
Posted by Rob on January 12, 2004 @ 08:12 PM
REALLLLLYYYY???????? Is that why Republicans all vote EXACTLY the same on every bill and every issue that comes across the floor, because they are so individualistic and of independent mind?
If there was ever a party in America that would make DAMN fine Communists, it’s the Republicans - they are literally terrified of thinking outside of the narrow dictates of each other’s narrow views.
Narrow mindedness is what makes Bush and his followers so disgustingly ANTI-AMERICAN.
Bush is a disgrace to America and he has contaminated this nation.
Don’t talk to me about being Anti-American because I’m a Democrat. I’m damn proud of it!
Ellen
Daughter of a West Point graduate
Grandaughter of an Annapolis graduate
Grandaughter of a WWII Purple Heart Veteran - Navy Seal
Great Grandaughter of a WWI Veteran
Cousin to a Persian Gulf War Veteran
Niece to a Vietnam Veteran)
OMFG I cant even list the ways I hate george bush, only the main reason. HIS STUPIDITY he sends innocent peoples to their deaths, DAILY, the 100th british soilder died in iraq 2 weeks ago, it was all over our newspapers, with a list of the deceased. He lies, talks utter bollocks and steals from his “fellow” americans and europeans and anyone else he knows. And then ahs the nerve to wonder why so many people loath him? recently he said that the terrorists were losing, how can you be that niave? The terrorists wanted a war, you gave them a war, how is that winning? terrosts want people to die, want people to live in fear. Luckily wthey have got Bush to do that for them! He seriously needs to get his head out of his ass and shoot himself in the head before we ahve no coice but to do it ourselves, before he finds an easier way to kill us all, shoot us in the ends you lousy faggot! k8 x x
To Pauls comment (third from the top), yes, how unfortunate, because in past wars we sent them on holiday and refreshment….no one died then. I understand your point. How awful is it that we sent soldiers to war where people die when we could have sent them to one where no one faces death, especially seeing as how they werent forced into the military and enlisted on their own accord and are willing to fight for our country. Not everyone is a scared pussy like you. Moran……Skipping through about 300 ignorant posts…..Ah, here’s one - BushNgenToT - No, actually 90% of the world hates America, and that is regardless of what head figure is in office. And I would like to know where you get your figures from? Perhaps Peter Jennings asshole!? It’s funny how the numbers escalate 150% before and election, but after the polls are closed the exact opposite is proven otherwise. But that is the liberal tactic. We have good ideas, but can’t get organized or really even agree on anything with ourselves, much less find a concrete political standpoint, so let’s just spend a lot of money on propaganda commercials and post a bunch of lies that ironically, will all be dropped after the election and will be the complete opposite the next time around. ……Now let’s take a look at Rochelle - “I hate him more than I can convey in words!!!!” Yes, I can tell by your post you have a limited vocabulary and don’t have much of value to say. If only we could see you, maybe you could act it out for us……….And I concur Ill Nino, fuck intellect, fuck college, fuck wisdom, knowledge and literacy, fuck planning, rudamentary common sense and motor skills!!!…….I have nothing more to say. OMG! k8. Do you understand that this is without an argument the most ridiculously low casualty number you have ever heard of considering the fact that we not only went to war but took over an entire country! God you are pathetic! Here, I will put it in Cerebral Paulsy terms for you. “War mean some people die”. Steals from the Europeans? Hahaha, okay. Your name says it all, k8. Sounds like someone just got done watching a Michael Moore movie. I hope you wrote down everything he said! Wouldn’t want to forget anything. Michael Moore is the biggest piece of human trash I have ever had the displeasure of hearing. He just happens to hate everything Republican, and some might even say everything to do with democracy. Well you know what I hate? Ignorant, fat people. Propaganda and complex editing has never known a more discusting glutton till now. I know he is not necessarily relavant to my post, but I made myself angry thinking of how dumb some people in this world really are. Oh, and to Judith, the blind belgian waffle who gets all of her information fed to her through her Daewoo television, about 8, or 16 posts from the bottom. Here is a quote from the waffle. “I don’t really want to say anything about the political situation in the usa, because, at first i don’t live in america, and secondly, i don’t know enough about it to have strong and founded arguments.”………okay then why the hell did you even leave a post!! You left a post stating that American’s look bad to Belgians!!? Who cares!? I could care less what Belgium thinks. Is Belgium going to back us up when we get attacked, or preserve our freedom for us? NO! So why don’t you just leave an write a moralistic, riviting childrens novel entitled, “The Belgian Waffle That Said Too Much”. One specifically that teaches kids at an early age not to open their mouths if only heaps of grimmacing ignorance are to be vomited.
How could I have missed Ellen!? Well Ellen, take a good look at who you have had run for presidency for the Democratic party in the last two elections! I think most people can agree that Gore turned out to be an idiot and most likely happy they didnt have to endure a term with him at the wheel. And what about Kerry and his entire political stance, or more the lack of. That is why the Democratic party does so poorly. It isn’t because Republicans vote identical, it’s because Democrats don’t even know what they are voting for. Im sure the general concensus between liberals is, “just make sure you vote opposite of the conservatives”. I can without a shadow of a doubt say i would have more than given Kerry a chance had he produced some sort of credibility and offered me a concrete alternative to Bush’s agenda. You didn’t even give Republicans an option, rather you just slapped us with a joke for a representative. All Kerry did the entire process was bring up Bush’s past and procure lies in hopes that this would be enough to win an election. Perhaps the American people are not as dumb as you or I convey them to be. And I am sorry that you are sore over the entire ordeal, but maybe next time you should spend your time rallying to inform people based on FACTS before the election rather than just bitch afterwards.
Bush is not a Christian. He believes in war, murder, greed, and theft. He breaks commandments like toothpicks. REAL CHRISTIANS need to stand up and speak out against his evil policies. He’s making true believers in God look bad.
Yes Jesus, what is a REAL Christian anyway? Christians are just as fallible as any other human being on earth, and they believe in war, murder, greed and what not as well. What do you think the Crusades were? The bible is littered with refereces to war, in fact, the more you read, the more you find. That’s like saying Islamics that go to war and kill are less Islamic. What about Jews? They are fighting constantly, so I guess they aren’t Jewish at all. Besides, you broke a commandment when you posted with the name Jesus. Thou shalt not use the Lords name in vain. And Bush isn’t giving Christians a bad image. Christians do a fine job of that on their own!
I hate Bush too but I wonder how we as Americans can continue to sit by and watch all of this evil greed continue and basically do nothing? Was OJ just a test case to see just how much we are willing to ignore? Why aren’t we out in the streets protesting and raising hell? And I don’t mean a few thousand of us, I mean millions. Have we all fallen so far that we can’t get up? This is the scariest part about America today, people sit by and do nothing. We are numbed out and told in many ways that we cannot change things.
Come on Americans before it’s to late. Let your screams be heard in the streets. IT IS TIME TO STOP THIS FRIGHTENING BAND OF CRAZYS AND TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK FROM THE INSANITY OF THESE BALL-LESS REPUBLICIANS AND THE CORPORATIONS THAT FILL THEIR POCKETS WITH CASH.
I didn’t have the time to read down through all the entries. Has anyone talked about Bush being “on time” in the global efforts to bring about the coming of the Antichrist? Bush (son and his dad) and Bill and Hillary are neither ignorant nor stupid. They don’t care what happens to the masses of people.
GW is no doubt the worst president in the history of this country. The damage he has done to the u.s. is almost incalculable. Our foreign image, our credibility the loss of life, the arrogance, damage to the ecomomy the debt, privacy, arrogant lawbreaking, tax breaks for the wealthy, stolen elections, government leaks and perjury, dishonesty, indictments, NSA, Harriet Meirs, false religious beliefs, he doesn’t care who is hurt. and Cheney is even worse if that is possible. I can’t wait until November so the democrats can take over congress and impeach him and cheney.
G.W.Bush doesn’t know what the hell he’s doing he just wants to make the blind shortsighted public beleive that he’s doing something to help this country when in real life he’s just sending the world into ww3. The bastard even wants to bomb iran does anyone else see a problem with that? because i sure as hell do. Because if he does it thats just going to add fuel to the fire. I believe that war is a necessary evil but just go in, do wat you came to do and get the fuck out it’s that fucking simple. and he also needs to stop pretending he’s such a good christian because he’s not he’s no better than a goddamn nazi!
hes a peice of shit…but im not worried because people like him ALWAYS get theres in the end!!!
Hello, please read this letter and foward it to as many people as you can. Happy 4th of July.
Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq? Questions and Answers about Foreign Policy (and the U.S. Invasion of Iraq) (c) 2003 anarchie bunker
Permission is freely granted to copy, print, and distribute this material by any means, so long as the author is given proper credit and so long as this statement is included in any and all copies made for distribution.
Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq? A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction. Q: But the inspectors didn’t find any weapons of mass destruction. A: That’s because the Iraqis were hiding them. Q: And that’s why we invaded Iraq? A:Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections. Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn’t find any weapons of mass destruction, did we? A: That’s because the weapons are so well hidden. Don’t worry, we’ll find something, probably right before the 2004 election. Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction? A: To use them in a war, silly. Q: I’m confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn’t they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them? A: Well, obviously they didn’t want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves. Q: That doesn’t make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back? A: It’s a different culture. It’s not supposed to make sense. Q: I don’t know about you, but I don’t think they had any of those weapons our government said they did. A: Well, you know, it doesn’t matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway. Q: And what was that? A: Even if Iraq didn’t have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country. Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country? A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people. Q: Kind of like what they do in China? A: Don’t go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer. Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it’s a good country, even if that country tortures people? A: Right. Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured? A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured. Q: Isn’t that exactly what happens in China? A: I told you, China is different. Q: What’s the difference between China and Iraq? A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba’ath party, while China is Communist. Q: Didn’t you once tell me Communists were bad? A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad. Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad? A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured. Q: Like in Iraq? A: Exactly. Q: And like in China, too? A: I told you, China’s a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not. Q: How come Cuba isn’t a good economic competitor? A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us. Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn’t that help the Cubans become capitalists? A: Don’t be a smart-ass. Q: I didn’t think I was being one. A: Well, anyway, they also don’t have freedom of religion in Cuba. Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement? A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he’s not really a legitimate leader anyway. Q: What’s a military coup? A: That’s when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States. Q: Didn’t the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup? A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend. Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate? A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate. Q: Didn’t you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader? A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan. Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan? A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th. Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th? A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men - fifteen of them Saudi Arabians - hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings in New York and Washington, killing 3,000 innocent people. Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that? A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban. Q: Aren’t the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people’s heads and hands? A: Yes, that’s exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people’s heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too. Q: Didn’t the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001? A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs. Q: Fighting drugs? A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies. Q: How did they do such a good job? A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off. Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people’s heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people’s heads and hands off for other reasons? A: Yes. It’s OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people’s hands for growing flowers, but it’s cruel if they cut off people’s hands for stealing bread. Q: Don’t they also cut off people’s hands and heads in Saudi Arabia? A: That’s different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply. Q: Don’t Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too? A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering. Q: What’s the difference? A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman’s body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman’s body except for her eyes and fingers. Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name. A: Now, don’t go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends. Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia. A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan. Q: Who trained them? A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden. Q: Was he from Afghanistan? A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man. Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once. A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s. Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about? A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now. Q: So the Soviets - I mean, the Russians - are now our friends? A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we’re mad at them now. We’re also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn’t help us invade Iraq either. Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too? A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast. Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn’t do what we want them to do? A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade. Q: But wasn’t Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s? A: Well, yeah. For a while. Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then? A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily. Q: Why did that make him our friend? A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy. Q: Isn’t that when he gassed the Kurds? A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend. Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend? A: Most of the time, yes. Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy? A: Sometimes that’s true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better. Q: Why? A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America’s side, anyone who opposes war is a godless unAmerican Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq? Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right? A: Yes. Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq? A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do. Q: So basically, what you’re saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head? A: Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night. Q: Good night, Daddy.
What is wrong with you stupid democrats. I think George Bush is a great president and I am 13 years old. Democrats are the biggest liers out there. I have no respect for someone who supports democrats. I don’t hate democrats I just can’t stand them. Democrats hate republicans so that means republicans are better people. Democrats will do anything to get into the white house even if it means cheating. That is what I can’t stand about them. They are just dirty, lieing, stupid, cheating, hypocrites. If you think republicans cheat then you are living in dream world. Democrats are the biggest cheaters out there. Republicans don’t cheat. They win fairly. Why do you people hate Bush. What did he do to make your life miserable? And also the military isn’t a jobs program for all you stupid liberals who think that’s true. We need war because we had 9/11. We need to fight those terrorists. What do you bone headed librals not get? We need war to have peace. Why am I even explaing this to you dumb liberals because it will just go right over your heads. I am smart because I made the honor roll. What does that tell you about republicans?
who is this clueless robsix anyway. been letting rush limbaugh (now i need a little illegal viagra to go along with the rest of my illegal drugs, but i’ll be the first guy to criticize all those other druggies out there) and sean (i’m such a good christian, i just happen to hate everybody who sees things differently from me) hannity to think for him like so many other little right wing robots have for so long. remember rob, god put that thing above your shoulders for more than to weigh the rest of your body down. use it, if there is, or ever was anything in there to use.
as far as wmd, you want to play the blame game, well you might want to start before clinton to the ones who armed saddam in the first place. ronnie raygun and daddy bush. face it, saddam was no real threat to the usa, it was payback to save face for the family. dumbya had every intention of invading iraq if ever eleceted president. he even discussed it with his cabinet his first week in office (when not vacationing).
why do we get so focused with saddam and look the other way when it come to other evil leaders much more dangerous to our country? i’ll answer for you since i know you need the help, iraq (we thought) would be a quick, easy victory. not like north korea or other examples. they may actually put up more of a fight than we want to deal with. plus iraq has oil and we know how much dumbya, cheney, the enron and halliburton cronies, the gas, oil, and petroleum party (gop) like that texas tea. jed clampett had more brains than these cowards.
regarding the coward comment, these brave people (dumbya, cheney rummy and others) had their chance to be brave, but found other convenient ways to stay out of the fray when they were young. now they want to be be brave with other people’s blood and guts. they even put down the medals and wounds suffered by true heros in combat like john kerry and former senator cleland. what a disgrace and how unpatriotic can you communists be.
bottom line, dumbya invaded iraq due to wmd and an “imminent threat” to the usa. wmd were not found and thereby the village idiot’s reason for invasion did not prove out. you have the burden of proving wmd was present to justify the invasion. we on the other hand, who did not support the invasion and instead focused on real terrorism threats like afganistan and north korea, have no burden. since wmd were not found, it looks like we were right and you were wrong.
invading iraq did create one thing for you to be proud of…now there is a real terrorist threat in iraq. this is dumbya’s creation, pure and simple. he has brought the world hatred toward the usa to it’s greatest heights ever. this after 911 when we had the support of the majority of the world.
go have some fun. put your kkk outfit on, get drunk, and find somebody to hang…ya all.
wow, Kyle Albanese, you are incredibly ignorant. I’m 17 years old and I realized that George W. Bush is truly evil right after 9/11, when I researched our president and his ability to “win” an election. Before you start to criticize democrats and praise George W. Bush, perhaps you should do your own research instead of simply repeating what mommy and daddy said. If my parents were evil Bush-loving Republicans, I’d still hate Bush as much as I do. Because you see, by age 13, one should be able to have their own beliefs and not rely on parents for an opinion. Furthermore, you should be looking at a non-bias source for your support on your opinion, because no matter how non-bias the media wants you to think they are, they are incredibly conservative. Take what the media says with a grain of sand and make your own conclusions. Personally, I suggest looking at BBC network. At least they see America from the World’s perspective. In addition, Michael Hanson, it’s about time somebody spoke out over the internet as much as you have. Most of my T-shirts that I wear everywhere have something to do with hating Bush, the Patriot Act, etc. However, I’ve come to realize that persuading Bush-lovers is like teaching a mentally-challenged child not to be mentally-challenged. However, I do find it most amusing that Bush’s approval rating is at what, a 29%? You know that Bush is truly horrible at his job when most Republicans dislike him. And Kyle Albanese, sadly enough, you are the epitome of many American children, and most Americans for that matter. It’s people like yourself who cause the rest of the World to laugh and hate us for stupidity, evil, ignorance, and economic imperialism.
Oh and by the way Kyle Albanese, just because you make the honor roll, doesn’t make you smart. I made the honor roll dumbass, am I stupid? did i mispell lying like you did? Furthermore, wait till high school, when everybody laughs at you and beats you up for thinking that you are better because you make honor roll. I would love to get your screen name. Leave it if you’d like to debate me on this subject.
I haven’t had a chance to read all the posts but the opinion seems unanimous - George Dubya is seen as evil.
Well, it’s not all bad. I mean, he’s fantastic entertainment value. Evidently 59 million or so Americans agree with me because they voted the idiot in. Ok, most of them did because of the sheer entertainment value. The remainder were his mates who voted on the back of the promise for tax breaks / oil concessions.
Through George’s imcompetency we better appreciate the efforts of Clinton, the hard decisions of Roosevelt, and the eloquence of Luther King.
George is largely a puppet of his advisors. He wouldn’t know an original idea if it slapped him in the head. If you Americans really want a good president, vote with your heads, not your wallets.
When Bush was in his first term I hated him. now he is in his second term and I fucking hate him! And after Katrina, how he sat on his texan ass for days before even acknowledging what had happened! While we watch the news and hear that more of our soldiers have been killed, Bush is playing golf on the white house green! I’m so sick and tired of his bullshit! you Know what I say? I say we move to canada. It’s perfect for me because it’s closer to my family, it’s obviously very safe because everyone leaves their doors unlocked, and best of all we would be away from Bush and his girlfriend Dick cheney.That’s all I have to say.
What is wrong with all of you dumb democrats. I think George Bush is great president and I am glad you have to be stuck with him for another two years. Watch your mouth James, I don’t like fowel mouth Bush haters. I am thirteen years old and I love the Magic School Bus. NOT EVERY SOLDIER IS GETTING KILLED IN IRAQ YOU STUPID DEMOCRATS! There have been lots of wars started by democrats. Like Franklin Roosevelt. He got us in World War 2. Don’t you democrats know that we got attacked by terrorists on September 11 2001? THAT IS WHY THERE IS WAR for crying out LOUD! I could explain it to you forever but you still won’t get it. And also George Bush did not cheat he won fairly. We had to be stuck with Bill Clinton for eight years, so why not a repulican president for that many years? That is why I can’t stand democrats. They are hypocrits. They are always one sided and that is why I would never support them. You don’t go and hateing someone just because of what they are doing. It is ok not to agree with Bush but you don’t have to hate him. Republicans are smarter then democrats because republicans get good grades and go to college, and democrats get bad grades and drop out of school. Am I making myself clear? I make the honor roll in school and I support republicans. It is ok to support democrats, but you don’t have to go and hateing someone who doesn’t vote like you. I don’t hate democrats, I just can’t stand them.
well kyle, wouldnt u say that say that ALL democrats are stupid is a generalized? in fact, i know countless democrats who are very intelligent and have gone through college, etc. also, republicans are of the same nature. some are losers and some are quite successful. i do not hate all republicans nor am i a democrat. i like somebody who is honest and hard-working and who is not ignorant about a situation that he ( kyle albanese) argues about. just because u are on the honor roll, does not mean that u are smart. it means that u studied. furthermore, aer u implying that world war two was not necessary or was unjust? i hope not, because im sure that at least one of your relatives fought in it and they’d be very upset to find out that your ideologies are hurting them. and by the way, i find it really hard to believe that you are 13, because no 13 year old would admit to the WORLD WIDE WEB that they watch the Magic School Bus. Kyle, you are just a momma’s boy who knows nothing about this matter and should therefore not be on this debate. you are making accusations about a political ideology without having any support to back your argument. please AIM me at weakninja for further debate. James, im glad you said what you said, this country needs more people like u and me and less people like kyle albanese who are just puppets of their parents.
Weakninja88, democrats are stupid because they see things backwards. They think that nothing good has come out of the war but it has. It is very sad when soldiers get killed in Iraq, but they are doing it to keep this country safe. The good thing that has come out of this war is that we have had no terroists attacks since 9/11. I do not like war. I think war is cruel and so does everyone else. War is a job that needs done. We have had wars since the beging of time. I am also not critizing World War 2. I am just saying that Bush and other republican presidents don’t just start wars. We got attacked by the Japanese so we needed war then. Even though you are not democrat, you think like one. You can belive what ever you want, it is a free country. I am just letting you know that you are wrong. I have researched anti-Bush stuff but I do not buy into that crap. But a guillible person like you would. This country would go to Hell if it was runned by you and James. All you guys would do is say fowel language and hate people who don’t side with you. I don’t use that kind of language because it is disrepectful. If you are in pain or something and it happens to slip out then that is ok. Other then that you shouldn’t use fowel language. And another thing is I don’t just get all this stuff from my parents, I watch the Fox News Channel. They don’t just get the conservative side, they get the liberal side too. And besides, my mom is a very intelligent women because she could argue day and night with you until she finds out she is right. My grandma is a very intelligent women also. She is a lawyer and knows her government. My dad even voted for Bush and his side of the family is all liberal. What do you say to that? The reason I am arguing is because you think Bush is evil and he tried to steel the election. In that case, how come he got relected? How come John Kerry or Al Gore didn’t win the last elections? I just don’t like hate. There is so much hate in the world and I don’t like it. Also, what is wrong with me liking the Magic School Bus at age 13? I love that show. I have loved it ever since I was 3 years old. It does’t matter what age you are, you can still like it. Oh and Weakninja88 you probably get good grades but your thinking is just backwards. Also, the people who drop out of school are mostly liberals.
kyle, u say that we went to world war ywo because we got attacked by the Japanese. However, we were never attacked by Iraq. We actually went to war, supposedly, because Iraq “had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs)”. We have not found any WMds yet because they dont exist. Iraq at one time did have them as we learned from the Iraq Iran War in the 1980s. Furthermore, if we went to Iraq because they had WMDs, why didnt we attack North Korea as well. In fact, we KNOW for a fact that North Korea has an active nuclear weapons program, has long range missiles that are capable of hitting any west coast city as of right now. The dictator of North Korea has admitted to this to the international community. So how come we didnt attack North Korea? Most people can conclude that we didnt attack North Korea first, even though they were and still are a bigger threat, because they dont have that lovely stuff called oil. If we attacked Iraq because they had ties to Al Qaeda, then how come we didnt attack Somalia which is a very poor country in Africa that has large ties to AL Qaeda? If we are trying to find Osama Bin Laden, dont you think that the reasonable thing to do is to look where we think he is, which is in the mountains along the border of Pakistan? Although we are already doing this, dont you think that we should’ve focused more troops on this area? And if were against countries that have ties to AL Qaeda, dont you think that we should invade Saudi Arabia? well , we havent done that yet, because Dick Cheney’s Haliburton is already prominent there. Also, Bush wanted to give control to an Arabian company of how nation’s ports. However, it’s a publicaly known fact taht that particular company had direct ties to Al Qaeda. So how come Bush wanted to give them control over our ports? Ports that would allow WMDs to enter America with no problem.
Now, as for John Kerry. the last election was basically an election of the lesser of the two evils which i thought was Kerry. I was originally ok with the outcome because I figured that this time Bush had won the election fairly. However, I recently read an article by one of the Kennedys that gave substantial evidence that the last election was fixed. For instance, thousands of black voters were not even allowed to vote because they were “criminals”, even though they had never committed a crime. furthermore, Bush’s first election was fixed. Why were thousands of ballots thrown out? even though the people were not criminals. And i never criticized you for watching the magic school bus, I just have a slight doubt taht you are really 13. Please leave your AIM screen name on your next posting so we can debate in a faster way.
My screen name is MSBKyle@aol.com.
Let them hate, so long as they fear!
I found a couple cool anti-Bush shirts, check em out.
http://www.FreakinTeeShirts.com
Never Mike.
I watched the interview between Katie Couric and Bush last night and I couldn’t believe how fucking stupid he was! He looked as though he didn’t even understand the questions. He’s not fit to be president. Here’s a sad fact, Kevin Federline is probably more fit to be president than Bush! Bush is just a good ol’ boy from bum-fuck texas who should be wearing overalls, no shirt and a stock of wheat hanging out his mouth, but somebody went out bought him suit. That’s all I have for now.
Oh, what do you know Jude? Shut up and quit using fowel language. You know nothing about polotics. I watched Path to 9/11 a few nights ago and it reavels the truth on how the Clintons lied. You should watch it sometime instead of bashing the president. Read my comments above.
Kyle, YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT!
god bless you jlk, kyle is incredibly ignorant and has yet to IM me on AIM, probably because he knows that i will destroy him in a debate. my screen name is weakninja88, somebody IM me so i can bitch them out or so i can agree with you
I left my email address at the top. Did you not see it?
A i do not blame bush i blame you dumb ass americans who voted the white peice of trash into office. He stinks his wife stinks and his alcoholics of daughters he owns. Americans will beleive anything and anybody i feel for you. You deserve everything this coward does for the rest of his time at the white house. One of those planes should have hit his ass white piece of shit. What has Bush done for you? this question goes out to all those who are not on his ass kissing list!!!!!!!
Watch your tone of mouth Bush Killer. You couldn’t have typed your real name instead of that? My email address is MSBKyle@aol.com. I left it at the top as well. Just because you posted that comment doesn’t change my views. It is America and we all have our views.
well bushkiller, u seem to forget or not realize that most people did not vote for bush. in fact, al gore won the popular vote, not to mention the thousands of black voters who were just taken off the voting list. it really hurts me to think that somebody would actually go as far to say that all americans are idiots and that we all deserve Bush’s dumb ass. i dont know where the fuck you are from, but you should research something before you make an ass of yourself. i am an american and am completely content with being one. it’s the president i have a problem with. i have a huge problem with people who criticize americans for international problems that are out of our jurisdiction. furthermore, i hope that you are not implying that 9/11 was a good thing. if so, i truly believe that you are some sort of godfearing, american hating, muslim extremist, sand-nigger who wants to kill INNOCENT americans because Allah told you to. any true Muslim would testify that Allah wants peace and love which is what the pillars dictate. if you are not the above, then you are just a foreign dumbass who wouldnt know American politics if it slapped them in the face. I DO HATE BUSH THOUGH.
i to hate bush it is very scary to think that this fool is the worlds most powerful man our prime minister is a weak dog in the way he followed bush into iraq. now more muslins hate us now,we were once welcome all around the world. we no longer have that luxury. please america someone get rid of this baffoon
Oh, why don’t you shut your mouth Shamed Aussie or whatever your name is. Muslims have hated us even before 9/11. And who cares if they hate us. I hate them because they would like to blow you and I up. They are such sick people. And Bush is doing a good job is protecting this country because we havn’t had any terrorists attacks since 9/11. That is why we are at war because we had 9/11. If there was no war then this country would go to Hell. Yes, war is cruel, war is awful, and more importantly, war is bad. But we need it to fight those terrorists. Would you rather have the be here? Think about it. Please read some of my comments above starting from July 7.
Most of you are dumb @$$ tree huggin hippies and u need 2 die like u would do a better job…maybe u would w/ my foot up ur ass there is no backing 2 these arguments at all unless ur conservative and awsome like me…liberals can suck a fat one!!!!!!!!!Thank you
LIBERALS SUCK SOOOO SHUT UP YOU HIPPIES
Im a hippie and i like weed and crack and i luv trees and bush doesnt luv trees lets smoke some meth
well i really hate gearge w bush im not a hippy but all these taxes it fells like you are trying to buy a really expensive item you dont need.
george w bush isnt trying to prefent war he is making war if you watch the fucking news you will see lots of wars comming from geroge w bush lets say the germans ask to be pals buddys bush would say fuck you fuck head make a war and almost a million kids get killed cause of them if you like or love george bush and you think he is trying to pregent war thing again go fuck yourself george bush lovers go to hell.
George W. Bush has had his flaws. However, he reacted in a positive way to both the 9/11 attacks and Hurricane Katrina. People such as the ones that have commented above have been manipulated as well as brainwashed by the media. I am not saying i agree with what he has done or how he has led this country, but i do believe the hate and dislike that he receives, is out of perspective.
It was Ghandi who once said, ” Hate the sin, love the sinner.” Many of the democrat supporters contributing to this blog must realize George W. Bush has advisors as well. Not all the ideas are made up by him.
If your considered wacko,Then i’m considered wacko as well, everytime i see his face on TV or on a website, i want shoot the TV because it’s as close as i can get to shooting the bastard in real life. I should really be allowed to kill him, shouldn’t i? after all he’s sent thousands to their deaths.
Is it just me or does no-one else my age apart from a select few realise what a fucked up, son of a bitch he is? After all the only he’s going to get anyones vote is if he’s talkd to a careless ignorant world. He maybe doing just that.
One final note to Geore W Bush, get the fuck out of this world and stay out.
i hate geoge w bush.he is the prime example of ignorance.he ignores eveybody and thinks he knows everything.he tries to be funny but people dont laugh with him but at him.in the last ten days 90 civilians have been killed in iraq.he thinks life is cheap for those who are not frm influential familes.this is not the way he must stop the war now before america become the most hated nation.its going towards a dead end.war must be ended people have a right to live just becoz they are born
holy shit, you guys are fucking dumbasses, 1- he had the guts to retaliate against our foes, true we shouldnt be in there still, but the opposing force SHOULD have been acted against. after 16 years of little tiny acts of terrorism here and there, he actually did something. something clinton the winey bitch couldnt do. 2- War, yeah people die, most of those people are willing to die to protect those they love back home, here. and then some join just to get free college, and those are the ones that end up dying. the ones who realize what hell war is. if they didnt want to die, then they shouldnt sign up for what kills.
Dear Zac
Though I respect your opinion, I disagree with its content and very much disagree with its tone, and I do so as a retired military officer with 21 /1/2 years on a combat crew, including two tours in Viet Nam. Though I could be wrong, as I do not know you, it is at least probable I have “paid my dues” and you have not, as have my friends, some of which have died in the manner you described, others having been POWs. Forgive me if I am wrong. I think, with my experience, I “realize what hell war is.”
There was no retaliation against our foes. The 9.11 attackers were largely from Saudi Arabia, none from Iraq, and Bin Laden is still free, as far as we know. The several acts of terrorism to which you refer did not involve Iraqis or Afganastanis.
It is not a virtue to do something if that something is wrong or immoral.
It is President Bush who keeps speaking of a “faith based” approach to matters. Well-and-good. At the same time, Christian writers such as Augustine and Grotius have defined what is called “the Just War Theory,” defining the conditions necessary and sufficient for War. I assure you, using GWB’s own “faith based” approach, the present situation does not meet the criterion for a “Just War.”
bush is no better than hitler, sudaam hussein, or osama bin laden , get my point? he’s a murderer too! what did God called the president after he sent him to hell? THE BURNING BUSH!
George Bush.. Has no right to live.. “”“Death row”“” 2008 is upon us a new coming will uprise…
i hate george bush cause hes a stupid queer bait.he sat 4 an hour reading a damn book when irag bombed the twin towers and he knew about it. I HATE GEORGE BUSH AND SO DOES EVERBODY ELSE.HE NEEDS TO GO AWAY.
I will admit i have been a republican for 28 yrs come this Nov when i will cast my vote for John McCain am proud american…I depise GW Bush oh what he did to the republican party he destroyed it….That’S why you liberal loons are getting obama or team billary this year..so good luck you need to thank gw bush instead of hating HIM thats the only way you weirdo’s are getting the WH…
Bush is,without any doubt, the worst president that this country has ever had and possibly will ever have. He has single-handedly bankrupted this country. We have gone from being the most admired country in the world to being the most villified. We are embroiled in a war which is costing us billions of dollars a week and, worse yet over four thousand lives so far. (And this is our most valuable national resource of all, the lives of our young people.) Gas is at $4 dollars a gallon and on its way up and the stock market is in the toilet. Usually the stock market and our economy thrive during a war. That has not been the case. I do not believe that assassination can be justified no matter what the rationalization, but I do feel that George W. Bush should be “bitch-slapped by every man, woman and child in our country, possibly the world. What an asshole!
I hate the SOB because he just came through Atlanta and SCREWED up all our traffic even more than it usually is. I don’t know why they think the need to close the roads when he comes through. It’s not like anyone cares to shoot his sorry ass now! He’s on his way out!! Thank God for that, no more BUSHY!
Obama is a racist that cant even put a sentence together
REPUBLICANS/CONSERVATIVES RULE!!!!
There’s lots of hatred here on this board. It’s very sad actually. I don’t really understand why so many people hate President Bush. These people really hate him. It is mind boggling! What has he done that would make anybody actually hate him? Tell it truthfully and not with left-wing sound bites, hate is personal, so tell it personally. What has he done to any of you personally to make you hate him? Probably nothing. I’m sure all of you hated Reagan too. History will likely give us a better account of the Bush presidency than we currently get, I’m sure. Use your energy for good and not for hatred to make changes if you think they are needed.
Christopher is right on! No one here is saying why they hate President Bush. Yes, he did have his flaws, but so did every single other president. So for all of you left-winged, cool aid drinking, watching too much CNN, here you go: The List of President George W. Bushes accomplishments: 1. Signed the Teacher Protection Act 2. Signed two income tax cut bills, (which I am pretty sure why most of you in here get more money back on your income taxes. If you don’t and are in a higher tax bracket, thank Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi) 3. Required states to do background checks before adopting a child 4. Raised Education IRA’s from $500 to $2,000 5. Created jobs and technologies that help the disabled. 6. Stopped President Clinton’s OSHA rules that would have collapsed every home business 7. Eliminated the death tax….yes, the government would tax you when you died 8. Helped reduce taxes on capital gains….if their were no capital gains, the job market would be worse of then it is now. 9. Spent millions of dollars to help people with disabilities to work from home. 10. Spent billions to help AIDS research. President Clinton gave 4 dollars to every person who had AIDS to help research, President Bush gave hundreds to each person. 11. Banned partial birth abortions 12. Upheld the 2nd amendment These are just the tip of the ice burg of his achievements. There are hundreds more that he has done. I’m sure people will say things like, he bankrupt the SSA, no, that was the two village idiots Pelosi and Reid. The US putting American Japanese into concentration camps in WWII, Waco and Ruby Ridge (Clinton Admin. which Janet Reno authorized); it seems that history has been forgotten. But, I will guarantee, President George W. Bush will be one of the greatest presidents that has ever lived. Some of you people please put down the cool aid and stop listening to CNN and MSNBC and CBS, and all the rhetoric you hear. I’m going to go out on a limb and say a good percentage of this forum has no secondary or high school education. That’s why this country is getting worse, is because of people not seeing past the rhetoric, the people are just getting dumber….and I think you’re all just a little scared that President Bush is smarter than you.
You have issues, you need to shut your mouth because you have no idea what your talking about, he is not a murderer like some other people have said, he’s just an idiot, he is definetely not a bad man
Reply to paul (3rd comment)
im in the 9th grade and i am quite political for my age
I just want to ask that if we dont fight back who will? Would you rather have them come over to america and kill you for no good reason? Would you rather have nuclear bombs sitting in your backyard? Those young men and women have choosen to do the job they do to protect you and all u can say is i would rather be dead?
think about it
and dont be such an inconsideret jerk
“Our Brave New World” is a new book about George Bush. To a conservative, this book is kryptonite. But, for liberals who love to hate George W. Bush, Our Brave New World is addicting. Rants, which originally appeared on the internet concurrent with his Presidency, will take you back to the inanity and malfeasance of Bush and his cronies - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Rove, Ashcroft, “Brownie,” Gonzales and Abramoff. Relive such unforgettable moments as Bush proclaiming “mission accomplished,” the search for the weapons of mass destruction, the revelations at Abu Ghraib, the paranoia of Plamegate, the horror of Hurricane Katrina, and the helplessness of financial meltdown. With sardonic wit, and allusions and quotations from anti-utopian literature, popular culture, and the works of authors like T.S. Elliot and Joseph Conrad, Our Brave New World chronicles a nightmare era in American history.
Continuing the Discussion