"Anti-American" phrase disappeared along with Bush?

jonny72

Browsing through my way through random politics forums, with their usual wrangling, I have seen the whole "anti-american" argument completely and utterly disappear since Bush has left office.

Rightwing Republicans seem to have entirely forgotten about its existence as an argument doorstop, I can't help but point this out, many an intelligent debate has descended into the utter ridiculousness because of that phrase.

thebman

In fairness on sites like Digg, Republicans have gone with the "of course they like Obama, he just says everything America does is wrong to them" line which is equally stupid IMO.

I keep hearing about this Kool Aid too..Must be good..

tolosenc

Nah. The whole thing was just handled stoopidly...

Sand

Probably not - you got to remember Bush was not an exceptional US president. He didnt nothing spectacular as a US President. No US President ever really gave a **** what the UN or the "international community" thought. The idea that he ought to was the revolutionary concept of the past decade, not that Bush actually didnt. Clinton was worshipped by all and sundry and he didnt give a **** what the UN thought, and every second weekend he violated the sovereignty of countries by bombing them. And yet, he probably couldnt buy a pint in this country with the queues of Bush haters lining up to buy him one and tell him what a great man he was.

The appointment of Obama has led to a certain pause - you must remember that the media of the US and practically every country in the world worshipped the man as a messiah, sent from God. But Obama is a false prophet.

He is a US president. With the responsibilities inherent in the office. So he is always going to dissapoint people whose political development ceased around puberty.

There is already the slow gathering realisation that Obama might not be the messiah. There is going to be the storm when the veageful media descend upon him.

Is anti-americanism gone? It was not invented with Bush. It will not end with Bush. They are a victim of their own cultural dominance. When an Irish person says Bertie Ahern is a thief and a scumbag, thats meant for an Irish audience with limited international impact. When an American denounces their leadership with similar venom, it bounces around the world and is absorped by vastly more people who form their views based only on such "loud" extremism.

Quiet, reasoned criticism wont make international impact.

jank

Go to a place like Iran or Pakistan and you will find plenty of anti-american rethoric. Then again Obama hasn't started any wars.... so go figure:pac:

Victor

Sand wrote: »

No US President ever really gave a **** what the UN or the "international community" thought.

At the same time, you have to admit that few American presidents have been so devisive or alienated world opinion so much.

Even with Reagan's rhetoric, aside from things like "We begin bombing in five minutes", it stayed focused. People may not have liked Reagan, even ridiculed him, but were willing to agree to disagree." At least Reagan will be remembered for being part of detente, will we fondly remember W for the surge and the drop in violence in Iraq, a war he started himself?

weepee

Its the age old Republican tactic in the States. Anyone who isnt pro military/pro war,
is called 'anti-American, and a 'liberal'.

Odd when you consider that the Bush Administration was more anti-American than most of the people it attacked.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Victor wrote: »

At the same time, you have to admit that few American presidents have been so devisive or alienated world opinion so much.

Even with Reagan's rhetoric, aside from things like "We begin bombing in five minutes", it stayed focused. People may not have liked Reagan, even ridiculed him, but were willing to agree to disagree." At least Reagan will be remembered for being part of detente, will we fondly remember W for the surge and the drop in violence in Iraq, a war he started himself?

uh, the removal of one of the worst tyrants of the late 20th century and imposition of a democratic system of government in iraq?

Victor

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

uh, the removal of one of the worst tyrants of the late 20th century and imposition of a democratic system of government in iraq?

But the war killed as many people in 6 years as Saddam did in the previous 30 or so.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

****ing connection timed out after I hit reply so let me try again

the war may have killed just that many people but you can't deny that it also removed saddam and saved future iraqis from having to suffer through either of his children assuming power and making a name for themselves in much the same way their father did.

I'm not a fan of bush and I certainly don't think it was americas place to go into Iraq, Saddam was an iraqi problem imo but you can't deny that bush did set in place events that removed a tyrant and democratised the government of a nation. I really don't see how 'history' won't vindicate him at least partially for this. Personally I don't think this will neccesarily be a good thing as it will give further ammunition to future american warmongers to argue that american military strength/dominance is a pure good and that they have the natural born right to kick over governments and redesign states as they wish but all I'm saying is we shouldn't argue against the facts. Bush removed a tyrant and democratised a government. For better or worse that did happen and while it's not politically or morally fashionable to admit that at the moment, in thirty or forty years time ... well, who knows but like I said, I would be surprised if the bush era wasn't viewed a little less scornfully. Only a little though.

Gurgle

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

you can't deny that it also removed saddam and saved future iraqis from having to suffer through either of his children assuming power and making a name for themselves in much the same way their father did.

Two words for you: Franco, Spain.

Sleipnir

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

imposition of a democratic system of government in iraq?

I think you mean the imposition of a puppet state.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

two words for you: North Korea

I like this style of conversation.

WIll we make it up to three words next?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Sleipnir wrote: »

I think you mean the imposition of a puppet state.

:rolleyes:

Sleipnir

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

I like this style of conversation.
WIll we make it up to three words next?

Naw, random pics and smilies seems to be the way forward.

Gurgle

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

two words for you: North Korea

North Korea is the result of US military intervention.
Spain isn't.
Which version of government would you rather see in Iraq in 30 years?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

I like this style of conversation.

I consider the fact that you read my post all the way through to be proof enough of its effectiveness.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

WIll we make it up to three words next?

*sigh* door open, horse gone.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Gurgle wrote: »

North Korea is the result of US military intervention.
Spain isn't.
Which version of government would you rather see in Iraq in 30 years?

Europe is the result of US military intervention.

I want a libertarian iraq, I want free people, free markets and limited government for Iraq. As it stands, I'll content myself with the fact that iraqis now have a say in the governing of Iraq and hope (most likely in vain) that liberalism will flourish.

wes

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

****ing connection timed out after I hit reply so let me try again

the war may have killed just that many people but you can't deny that it also removed saddam and saved future iraqis from having to suffer through either of his children assuming power and making a name for themselves in much the same way their father did.

Yeah, what they replaced Saddam with was a fundamentalist Shia regime instead. Where Women have even less rights than they did under the Secular Arab Nationalist Ba'ath party. Don't get me wrong, Saddam was a right proper tosser, but all the US did was cause the deaths of a whole lot of people, cause the largest refugee problem since 1948 and install a different set of nutters.

U.S. invasion makes life worse for women of Iraq

The people who were behind the Iraq war a bunch of criminal imho and should be tried in the Hague for there war of aggression. The US did the Iraqi people no favours and they should be paying reparations for there crimes against the people of Iraq.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

It was the iraqi people who elected the current government not the americans.

I'm not gonna argue about the fate of women in Iraq, the only place in the middle east women don't appear to be oppressed is Israel.. unless they're Palestinian of course.

wes

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

It was the iraqi people who elected the current government not the americans.

When, one of the US's retro-active stated aim's is the "liberation" of Women. doesn't the exact opposite happened show there little war to be a rather massive failure?

Also, my point is rather simple, the Iraq war did not make things better for the Iraqi people, there is no bright side to the bloody pointless war that the US embarked on. A whole lot of people died for nothing and its the fault of the US regime who launched it.

Liam Byrne

The phrase "anti-American" was trotted out by people who refused to objectively listen to the wrongs that Bush was doing. It was a last resort from people who refused to accept that Bush was a tyrant in his own right, and a great way of stifling and avoiding discussion.

I was never "anti-American", but VERY anti-Bush; and the phrase was fired off against me on numerous occasions.

But I always made 3 distinctions:

1) Bush was not the American people, and indeed didn't represent the majority of them (somewhere around 49%, admittedly, but not the majority)

2) Should I, personally, be judged by the actions of Cowen or Lenihan ? I hope not; but if I judged Americans by the same yardstick then I'd be in the wrong

3) Those who were brainwashed by Bush to force the issue on his agenda to invade Iraq, equating Iraq first with 9/11 and then with fictional WMDs, were in a state of fear and confusion which Bush and his cohorts took advantage of

90% of the time, I used the phrase "the American administration", to distinguish between what I would hope was "the real America" and the right-wing, contemptible warmongers that were running the show. If someone chose not to listen to the distinction, and chose to trot out "anti-Americanism" as their defence, then they were either among the warmongers or among the brainwashed.

Yes, among its many favourable traits, America stands for brash excess, unilateralism, extreme capitalism and their own version of "democracy", where even Obama's success is tainted by the obscene amount of cash required to create it.

And I mightn't like that; but as long as they don't try to impose it on me, then that's their choice.

W

Call Me Jimmy

wes wrote: »

When, one of the US's retro-active stated aim's is the "liberation" of Women. doesn't the exact opposite happened show there little war to be a rather massive failure?

Well in fairness, you can't expect the US to change social and religious culture that has developed over centuries. The fact that women are still oppressed is a side effect of giving the majority relative freedom. Unless you suggest imposing beliefs on another sovereign nation?

wes

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Well in fairness, you can't expect the US to change social and religious culture that has developed over centuries. The fact that women are still oppressed is a side effect of giving the majority relative freedom. Unless you suggest imposing beliefs on another sovereign nation?

Isn't that what the US tried to do? They imposed democracy at the end of a gun.

I certainly don't think more people should go there and impose equal rights for Women, it would make things worse, just like the whole "democracy" thing did. Still, it was one of there stated aims (retroactively), to liberate the Women there, this is one of there aims and not something I came up with.

My point is that, a whole lot of people died and things aren't exactly much better for the average guy on the street and in some cases its worse. Hell, there might not even be an Iraq if things kick off between the Kurds and Arabs. The US opened up a Pandora's box imho.

What was the point of the whole bloody war? All it resulted in is a whole lot of dead people and no good came of it.

Liam Byrne

wes wrote: »

Still, it was one of there stated aims (retroactively), to liberate the Women there, this is one of there aims and not something I came up with.

Er....aren't "AIMS" things you PLAN to do, i.e. BEFOREHAND ?

liberating women appears to have been - to coin one of their own phrases "collateral damage".

But if anyone questions the number of women they've liberated from extremism, don't; the only problem is that they - quiet literally - "liberated them" from the "lives" that they had.

wes wrote: »

What was the point of the whole bloody war? All it resulted in is a whole lot of dead people and no good came of it.

Er.....

The attack on 9/11; oh no - hang on.....those WMDs.....nope, ammm.... suspicion about nuclear weapons, like North Korea has.....nope, coz they didn't go near THEM, and they HAVE them........harbouring terrorists ? nope, parts of Ireland even does that, and they didn't invade us (other than Shannon).

EVERYONE knows at this stage that Saddam proposed selling oil in Euros; and everyone knows Bush was looking for an excuse to see if he could do what his daddy couldn't.

Control of oil + revenge.

Every other excuse doesn't hold up to impartial scrutiny.

weepee

I cant remember a big push for American intervention in Iraq, from Iraqis themselves, bar
the hanger-on'ers around DC.

dsmythy

weepee wrote: »

Its the age old Republican tactic in the States. Anyone who isnt pro military/pro war,
is called 'anti-American, and a 'liberal'.

Odd when you consider that the Bush Administration was more anti-American than most of the people it attacked.

Today, judging by American Liberal reaction to the recent anti-Obama tea parties, rather than being anti-American for not believing in everything your president does you're now a racist for doing so.

Victor wrote: »

But the war killed as many people in 6 years as Saddam did in the previous 30 or so.

Figures including Iraqi on Iraqi violence i suspect. Rather than have the sons of Saddam just take the reigns for him hopefully Iraq will be governed well into the future by responsible and non-murderous elected people.

wes

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Er....aren't "AIMS" things you PLAN to do, i.e. BEFOREHAND ?

Normally yeah, but not with the US regime at the time. They came up new aim's after the fact, and they couldn't even achieve those ones.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Onion did a piece on this

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/economists_warn_anti_bush

Liam Byrne

dsmythy wrote: »

hopefully Iraq will be governed well into the future by responsible and non-murderous elected people.

And hopefully the U.S will be governed by responsible and non-murderous elected people.

Your point is ?

Sand

And hopefully the U.S will be governed by responsible and non-murderous elected people.

Your point is ?

That the government of Iraq will be accountable (however imperfectly) to the Iraqi people for the forseeable future. For good or bad.

This is something that others take for granted. Perhaps too much so.