Is Bush intent on War?

Actually, what i meant was if saddam wasn't in power, then it is up to the people to choose which form of government they wish to use, whether it be a monarchy, democratic, or a dictatorship. Its not up to us to choose for them

miju

IMHO George Bush is the most dangerous and evil thing that the free world has faced since Hitler.

And no thats not be trying to be smart Bush seriously is dangerous to world peace he might come across as stupid but theres something about his constant sly smile and his eyes that make me think he's not as dumb as he likes to make out

Meh

Originally posted by the-raptor
IMHO George Bush is the most dangerous and evil thing that the free world has faced since Hitler.

Ever hear of a Russian chap called Stalin? Killed 40 million people, between artificial famines, gulags, deportations, massacres and invasions of peaceful neighbouring countries. Kind of puts Bush and his few hundred executions in Texas and few thousand civilians killed by US bombing into perspective, don't you think?

Claiming that Bush is worse than Stalin is just plain ludicrous. And people claim that there's no anti-Americanism on this forum...

bonkey

Originally posted by Meh
Claiming that Bush is worse than Stalin is just plain ludicrous. And people claim that there's no anti-Americanism on this forum...

People claim there is very little anti-Americanism on this forum, and they'd generally be the people who have understood the concept that George W Bush <> USA

You know...just like saying that (for example) Charlie Haughey was an incredibly corrupt politician does not make you anti-Irish.

The US media, on the other hand, can have a field day with their reports about "cheese-eating-surrender-monkeys", front pages showing the ostrich with a headline of "the National Bird of France", and so on and so forth.

This is clearly not criticism of the administration, or any individual within it. This is clearly an attack on a nation.

I havent seen you up and complaining about the anti-Frenchism, or any other nation that the US media have decided to roast in recent days with their comments about an Axis of Weasels, "mini-me minions", and so on and so forth. No - not a post about any of that.

So why not drop the righteous indignation. At the very best, Europe is simply giving as good as it gets in the "anti-something" stakes.

When you look at it in a different light, you'll notice that one group talks mostly about the disapproval of the actions of a nation, while the other simply insults the nation it disapproves of the actions of at increasingly regular intervals.

Having said all of that, though, I do agree that making Bush out to be worse than Stalin is ridiculous. Then again, any claim that "person X is the worst since Hitler" is almost automatically disregardable as nothing more than contentless soundbiting anyway.

jc

Lemming

Originally posted by Samson
Hell, their next step will probably be to declare martial law and suspend democracy while the "war against terror/evil/blah blah" continues,

check out wired today. One of the major headlines is about the "Patriot II" act which may or may not see the light of day.

Incidentally, I voted "Cause Rummzy tells him too"

Meh

Originally posted by bonkey
You know...just like saying that (for example) Charlie Haughey was an incredibly corrupt politician does not make you anti-Irish.

That's true, criticizing a leader is not an attack on an entire country. But what if, for example, a British tabloid were to say that the Irish government is "the greatest threat the UK has faced since Hitler"? I'm sure most people in this country wouldn't just shrug their shoulders and tell themselves that criticism of a country's government does not reflect on the citizens. No, they'd see such ludicrous hyperbole for what it is -- a transparent attempt at stirring up anti-Irish feeling.

The US media, on the other hand, can have a field day with their reports about "cheese-eating-surrender-monkeys", front pages showing the ostrich with a headline of "the National Bird of France", and so on and so forth.

This is clearly not criticism of the administration, or any individual within it. This is clearly an attack on a nation.

Absolutely. But kneejerk anti-European statements from idiotic American tabloids still doesn't excuse (slightly more subtle) anti-Americanism such as comparing Bush to Hitler. We should know better than to lower ourselves to their level.

IMHO George Bush is the most dangerous and evil thing that the free world has faced since Hitler.

I may be a it off, but i don't think he was comparing Bush to Hitler or Stalin for that matter. I think that he was saying that Bush in his own right is a threat to the peace of the world. Theres no way you can compare Bush to Stalin or Hitler, for the things that have been done. However comparisons can be made, in how Bush has turned the US's attention away from its economic problems towards its war efforts. Hitler did the same thing.

TBH, i'm not a big fan of the past few american presidents. In some ways Reagan was for worse trouble to the world than Bush has so far. However Bush is stupid enough, to make a few balls-ups in the future, especially with N.Korea.

Meh, an attack on Bush does not mean an attack on America. Most of the people in here that dislike the Bush administration, have admitted that they have friends/family in America or like american individuals. Anti-Americanism, is attacking America as a whole and/or its people. i.e. "All americans are Fat-Gits that spend their whole time in front of the TV eating fast food."

Oh, one other thing. A person can make one comment against America, and shouldn't be labelled Anti-American. Now, if they're always giving out about America, then yes, Anti-americanism does apply. (Note: again this does not apply to attacks against Presidental candidates, or individual people).

dathi1

So you support the right of the Iraqi people to be oppressed? How progressive of you...

Yes we should progressively bomb the sh.it out of them back into democracy!

Meh

Originally posted by klaz
I may be a it off, but i don't think he was comparing Bush to Hitler or Stalin for that matter.

"George Bush is the most dangerous and evil thing that the free world has faced since Hitler" is clearly a statement that Bush and Hitler are similar i.e. a comparison between Bush and Hitler.

Anti-Americanism, is attacking America as a whole and/or its people. i.e. "All americans are Fat-Gits that spend their whole time in front of the TV eating fast food."

Now we're arguing semantics. Very few anti-Americans are that unsubtle (unlike the anti-Europeans in America).

For what it's worth, my definition of "anti-Americanism" would be an extreme opposition to American policies which is based on a dislike of America as a nation, rather than rationally considering said policy on its own merits. Examples on this board: the Bush=Hitler post above. See also this thread about Bush's new AIDS funding. Bush announces he's going to give $15 billion to fight AIDS in the developing world and people accuse him of "lacking honesty", "pulling accounting tricks for political reasons" and "trying to impose conditions on the recipients".

Victor

Originally posted by the-raptor
IMHO George Bush is the most dangerous and evil thing that the free world has faced since Hitler.

You haven't heard of Pol Pot then have you?

So you support the right of the Iraqi people to be oppressed? How progressive of you...

cue scene from the Life of Brian

dathi1

For what it's worth, my definition of "anti-Americanism" would be an extreme opposition to American policies which is based on a dislike of America as a nation, rather than rationally considering said policy on its own merits. Examples on this board: the Bush=Hitler post above. See also this thread about Bush's new AIDS funding. Bush announces he's going to give $15 billion to fight AIDS in the developing world and people accuse him of "lacking honesty", "pulling accounting tricks for political reasons" and "trying to impose conditions on the recipients".

Not anti American ANTI BUSH.
yes 15 billion over 5 years..piss compared to what Clinton recommended for aids relief......10 billion goes towards killing Palestinians every year in military aid to Israel alone.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

sceptre

Originally posted by Meh
See also this thread about Bush's new AIDS funding. Bush announces he's going to give $15 billion to fight AIDS in the developing world and people accuse him of [......]"pulling accounting tricks for political reasons"

That would be me. Read my full post over there and you'll see that I approved of it while pointing out that it was also an accounting trick/procedure for a specific reason. It doesn't affect the impact of the aid; it is however, quite relevant to recognise the historical precedents behind this type of move. I didn't accuse him of pulling an accounting stunt for political reasons btw - he's pulling it for fiscal and economic reasons. And there's the fact that there's an actual aid increase. Which is good. Which I said. Which you ignored in your quoted post above. Selective quoting is like having a selective memory - it doesn't do your argument any favours.

And I'm not anti-American btw. Not even in the "some of my best friends are black but..." sense. I've said time and time again that Bush is a dangerous idiot. I've been saying it since 1999. It wasn't anti-American to say it before he was inaugurated president, it's not anti-American to be saying it since. I'm quite sick of this "ooooh noe, joo said s0meth1ng baaad about Israel, joo must be a jew-hater" type of argument.

"George Bush is the most dangerous and evil thing that the free world has faced since Hitler" is clearly a statement that Bush and Hitler are similar i.e. a comparison between Bush and Hitler.

Meh, The comparison was made, however i don't think it was a comparison of how they kill people. Bush hasn't systmatically rounded up arabs for killing, as hitler/stalin did with the jews, gypsies etc. I think the comment was more in the vein that there are a number of people throughout the ages that are a threat to the world & world peace. Bush IS a threat to world peace, just as Hitler was.

Now we're arguing semantics

however, anti-americanism needs to be clarified to a point in these boards, simply because its used so much.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Meh
See also this thread about Bush's new AIDS funding. Bush announces he's going to give $15 billion to fight AIDS in the developing world and people accuse him of "lacking honesty", "pulling accounting tricks for political reasons" and "trying to impose conditions on the recipients".

And there was me thinking I was arguing that it would be better for the US to channel extra aid through the UN's global fund. But no, it turns out I was just a racist, silly me.

Meh, if you're going to cite an opinion of mine as evidence of racism , it might be look better if you could come up with some argument against it. Then again, maybe you couldn't follow the logic which, boiled down, goes something like this:

This policy, good as it is, could easily be a lot better if the US weren't so keen to use aid as a political tool. The aid itself is still welcome.

Quite simple, really. And most rich countries - the US, Europe, Japan, etc - have been tying aid to political conditions for donkeys' years. The Bush administration explicitly attaches conditions to at least some of its aid. Some of these conditions have their merits, too (if applied fairly and properly), such as a requirement for democratic reforms.

Now, perhaps you'd like to tell me why pointing this out is racist, cos I'd love to hear it. Or does someone have to explain, once again, that disliking THIS policy of THIS American administration in THIS point in time is not even the same as disliking ALL this administration's policies, let alone ALL American administrations, let alone ALL Americans.

I had a lot of problems with US policy under Clinton. I've got more problems with US policy under Bush. I also disagree with certain policies in countries as diverse as Ireland, India, Zimbabwe and China. I suppose I'm just anti-Everyone, then :rolleyes: .

As far as I can see the only reason to throw about charges of 'Anti-Americanism' - in the face of people explaining ad nauseam that they are not anti-American, just anti-this-policy or anti-bush - is to silence criticism. Which is the opposite of what this discussion board is supposed to be about. So please, cop yourself on.

Meh

Originally posted by shotamoose
Meh, if you're going to cite an opinion of mine as evidence of racism , it might be look better if you could come up with some argument against it.

I'll keep that in mind, if I ever do cite an opinion of yours as evidence of racism. But since I'm not accusing you or anyone else of racism in this thread, that's not relevant right now. "American" isn't a race.

Or does someone have to explain, once again, that disliking THIS policy of THIS American administration in THIS point in time is not even the same as disliking ALL this administration's policies, let alone ALL American administrations, let alone ALL Americans.

I'm talking about people who seem to criticize every American policy, no matter what it is, apparently just because it's American. See definition above. Of the people who were criticizing the US AIDS policy, I wonder how many billion dollars they plan to contribute to AIDS research over the next 5 years?

As far as I can see the only reason to throw about charges of 'Anti-Americanism' - in the face of people explaining ad nauseam that they are not anti-American, just anti-this-policy or anti-bush - is to silence criticism.

So if someone compares the US president to Hitler (see above), you'd prefer if I didn't tell them how biased
they are? Who exactly is being silenced here? And before you say that criticizing a president is not the same as being anti-American, imagine the reaction in this country if a British tabloid were to say that the Irish government is "the greatest threat to the UK since Hitler".

shotamoose

Originally posted by Meh
I'll keep that in mind, if I ever do cite an opinion of yours as evidence of racism. But since I'm not accusing you or anyone else of racism in this thread, that's not relevant right now.
"American" isn't a race.

Fine, 'irrational xenophobia', then. Justify that.

I'm talking about people who seem to criticize every American policy, no matter what it is, apparently just because it's American.

Has it occured to you that someone might be criticising American policy because it deserves criticism? Again, I think if you want to back this up you're going to have to argue against the content of the criticism I put forward, rather then just arguing against the act
of criticism itself.

Of the people who were criticizing the US AIDS policy, I wonder how many billion dollars they plan to contribute to AIDS research over the next 5 years?

That is truly pathetic. Go read the thread, then come up with a proper answer.

So if someone compares the US president to Hitler (see above), you'd prefer if I didn't tell them how biased
they are?

Almost anyone who's ever invaded anyone else has been compared to Hitler. Bush is just the latest in a long line that includes Saddam and Milosevic. The comparison is usually misguided, pointless and done for propaganda purposes, and, imho, not motivated by anti-Iraqism, anti-Serbianism or anti-Americanism. You obviously choose to disagree (on the Bush one, at any rate), however I think you'd be far better off pointing out the weakness of the charge rather than shouting 'Anti-Americanism!'.

imagine the reaction in this country if a British tabloid were to say that the Irish government is "the greatest threat to the UK since Hitler".

I'd be quite surprised if a British tabloid said that, unless we were involved in some sort of serious dispute or war with Britain (war or the threat of war being the context for every case of Hitler-comparing I mentioned above), in which case I'd dismiss it as propaganda.

bonkey

Originally posted by Meh
Bush announces he's going to give $15 billion to fight AIDS in the developing world and people accuse him of "lacking honesty", "pulling accounting tricks for political reasons" and "trying to impose conditions on the recipients".

Are you therefore implying that it is not true that Bush is trying to impose conditions on teh recipients? That they will be free to spend this money on the products of any nation (as opposed to ploughing it back into the US) ???

I mean...otherwise no-one is "accusing him" of anything - they are stating a fact.

jc