Who does Bush remind you of?

QBall

Originally posted by Sparks
Qball,
None of that made SH a threat to anyone outside the borders of Iraq. Which is what Sand stated he was.

<COUGH>Iran</COUGH>

<COUGH>Kuwait</COUGH>

Sparks

Okay, hold on. Rationaly speaking, Hussein was not a threat to either of those at the time of the invasion. However, the depth of ill-feeling that the invasion produced has now created a large pool of future terrorists for the bin Laden's of this world to draw upon - therefore in tackling a non-existant threat, Bush created a very real one.

QBall

Originally posted by Sparks
Okay, hold on. Rationaly speaking, Hussein was not a threat to either of those at the time of the invasion.

<SARCASM>Which invasion? Saddam's of Iran/Kuwait or Bush's of Iraq?</SARCASM>

Sorry, had to get that out of my system. The point I was making was that Saddam wasn't the stay-at-home kind of dictator you seem to be making him out to be. IMHO it was only a matter of time before he got bored and decided to fabricate a territorial dispute as an excuse to go to war again. Saddam knew just as well as Bush does that there's nothing like a good war to get the approval ratings up.[1]

Originally posted by Sparks
However, the depth of ill-feeling that the invasion produced has now created a large pool of future terrorists for the bin Laden's of this world to draw upon - therefore in tackling a non-existant threat, Bush created a very real one.

First of all Saddam was not a "non-existant threat". He didn't threaten the US directly but he was a threat to regional stability (see Iran-Iraq war and Gulf War I). Whether he did or not, I'm fairly certain that Saddam would fund anti-US terrorist groups given half a chance. Odds are that he did.

Secondly, Bush did not create "a very real" threat. That threat has been there for a lot longer than he's been in power, mainly due to the USA's position on Israel. Anti-American feelings in the Middle East are older than me (and even older than you ;-)). There were people chanting "Death to America" long before Bush's father was in office. He may have increased the threat to the US, but IMHO there is no way that he could have decreased the threat AND stayed in power. <CYNICISM>Remember, as a politician his primary goal is to stay in power, not to serve the country/world.</CYNICISM>

The reality is, there hasn't been much of a shortage of people in the Middle East with a hatred for the USA. There are plenty of people in the Middle East who would still consider the US as the "Great Satan" even if Bush carpet bombed Israel and/or had Ariel Sharon publicly beheaded.

I think you're giving Bush "credit" for a job he didn't do. (And one he'd probably c*ck up if he tried)

[1] See http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm for several different versions of approval ratings for GWB. It may be interesting for all you he-wasn't-legally-elected folks[2] to note that (on a quick scan) I didn't see his approval rating below 50% and there are precious few places where the margin of error could make it so.
[2] FWIW I don't give a sh*t whether he was legally elected or not. The US system of presidential voting is really f*cked up. I prefer to whine about that rather than the specific case of GWB's election. (I didn't much like Gore either and from what I saw I liked Nader's style but not his substance.)

Sand

None of that made SH a threat to anyone outside the borders of Iraq. Which is what Sand stated he was.

Lie / example of illiteracy:) Ive said nothing about SH on this thread, and Ive never cared if he was a threat or not to anyone outside his borders.

therefore in tackling a non-existant threat, Bush created a very real one.

Yeah, damn those norwegians and their imperialist, terrorist creating ways!!!!

Hobbes

Originally posted by QBall
Do you deny that Saddam Hussein was (to borrow a phrase from Pulp Fiction) a "bad motherf*cker"?

Do you deny that the world (even if you restrict the "world" to the Middle East) is better off without him?

Better off without him? I believe the world would be a better place without Bush, however how he is removed is what causes the problem.

Do you honestly believe that Iraq is in a worse state now than it was 12 months ago?

Yes. You read the news right?

Do you honestly believe that the prospects for the people of Iraq are worse now than they were 12 months ago?

Exchanged one dictator for another.

Bush reminds me of a pre-WW2 Hitler.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Bush reminds me of a pre-WW2 Hitler.

Bit of an exaggeration- I seriously doubt genocide or eugenic politics are in Bush's political dictionary. Sh1t, the President of Pakistan wasn't in that dictionary, I doubt he even knows what eugenics means.

The views that everyone fears are thankfully only held by a small (powerful) group of idiot neoconservatives at the heart of the Pentagon (one or two at the NSC as well). The light at the end of the tunnel is that they are completely useless on home affairs. The last time Americans were truly politicized and cared a monkey's about foreign policy ventures was probably the Reagan administration. If Joe Schmo from Cocomo loses his job, sees his friends losing his job, sees the economy failing and then sees shareholders/big business and the wealthy get a 330 billion dollar tax break, something tells me he won't vote for Bush at the next election. Just a hunch mind!

bonkey

Why is it that every time that someone says "Bush reminds me of Hitler" someone comes up and says "Cant be right - where's the genocide".

Funnily enough, those people are all-too-quick to then offer us someone else who they believe Bush is comparable to....without pointing out that there will be key differences here.

I mean...for Chrissakes, if you pick anyone who's not a Texan, you can say "not a fair comparison, Bush is a Texan and this other guy isnt", or "not a fair comparison, Bush is American and this other guy isnt".

I havent heard one person say "cant be right - they neither look the same, come from the same nation, nor even speak the same language". And yet, if you're willing to overlook those glaringly obvious differences, why the hell is any other single point a defining issue which makes a comparison valid or otherwise????

It is a perfectly valid and reasonable opinion to say that you see similarities between any two people, as long as you are willing to admit that yes, there are also differences. It doesnt matter who those two people are.

I'm with Corinthian on this one. I think the comparison may be perfectly valid, but people are incapable of removing the emotion from their perspective.

Alternately, for all of you who are insisting that any such comparison is still invalid...and not just distasteful or ill-chosen, I'd suggest you examine the quote in The Corinthian's sig. Now, consider that Gandhi's opinion of Hitler was formed without the benefit of hindsight....just like all of us form our opinion of Bush.

If you can't learn a lesson from that (both for criticics and supporters of Bush), then the whole notion of comparing one leader to another is a wasted exercise in my opinion.

Originally posted by bonkey
Why is it that every time that someone says "Bush reminds me of Hitler" someone comes up and says "Cant be right - where's the genocide".

Maybe it's because it's not very PC to do so without the qualification that , it's hitlers policies prior to genocide and ethnic cleansing that you are comparing to Bush.
I'm pretty sure that a lot of the people protesting against the war, who were holding up pictures of Bush in Hitler uniform and moustache ( albeit a tiny minority) were trying to make the Genocide association, which doesn't hold any water.
mm

Hobbes

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
Bit of an exaggeration- I seriously doubt genocide or eugenic politics are in Bush's political dictionary. Sh1t, the President of Pakistan wasn't in that dictionary, I doubt he even knows what eugenics means.

There was a nice website which went more detail into the history.

Lets see
- A president that was elected under dubious circumstances.
- Ignoring world opinion (withdrawing from league of nations vs UN)
- Pre-emptive wars as "Self defense"
- Ultra-nationalist forigen policy.
- Glorifies patriotism to stir up public support and religious nut.
- Removal of civil liberties after the bombing of the Reichstag (compare to 9/11).
- Removal of rights for 'Certain people'.

There a lots more. A quick search got this. But there is a better site which lists off hitlers history pre-ww2 without mentioning Bush, and if you were to skim over it you would believe they were talking about bush.

No he's not into genocide, but give it time. Especially considering the US is now said it plans to use nukes.

Originally posted by Hobbes
you would believe they were talking about bush.

No he's not into genocide, but give it time. Especially considering the US is now said it plans to use nukes.

Yeah right:rolleyes:
From your link:

After President Bush promised last fall to invade Iraq, his spokesmen fell into the habit of comparing Saddam Hussein with Adolph Hitler, by most accounts the most monstrous figure in modern history. Everybody was therefore shocked when the German Minister of Justice turned the tables by comparing Bush himself with Hitler. As to be expected, she (the Justice Minister) was forced to resign because of her extreme disrespect for an American president. However, the resemblance sticks -- there are too many similarities to be ignored, some of which may be listed here.

considering every day now there seems to be hundreds of bodies dug up in shallow graves in Iraq;deaths attributable to Sadam...wheres the graves Dubya's men dug then??

Like Hitler, President Bush was not elected by a majority, but was forced to engage in political maneuvering in order to gain office.

Neither was Bertie or many, many other honest decent leaders in the west are they like hitler too?

Like Hitler, Bush began to curtail civil liberties in response to a well-publicized national outrage, in Hitler's case the Reichstag fire, in Bush's case the 9-11 catastrophe.

what the patriot act, that everyone seems to be complaining about...?
We have similar laws here and worldwide to catch Paedophiles an equally horrible offence in my book to Murder.

Like Hitler, Bush glorifies patriotism to stir up public support. He treats our nation's unique historic destiny almost as a religious cause sanctioned by God.

Except today we have the media and the internet for to express our opinions and resource information, regardless of how wacky it is.

12. Like Hitler, Bush is willing to invade other nations despite the opposition of the U.N. (League of Nations). He also has no qualms about bribing, bullying and insulting its members, even tapping their telephone lines.

To make that comparison, the author would have to say that the U.S and the U.K were going to stay in Iraq untill they were put out of it and , of course,provide evidence of ethnic cleansing and genocide while they are there.
Instead the net effect of the Coalition action was to overthrow a corrupt Brutal dictator, who according to last nights BBC News stored medical equipment and supplies bought under the oil for food programme in a warehouse , to gather dust untill they were needed to treat his own elite in his own private hospitals.
Given the net result, that blows that particular aspect of the Bush-Hitler comparison right out of the water and exposes it for the devilment that it is.
mm

bonkey

Originally posted by Man
To make that comparison, the author would have to say that the U.S and the U.K were going to stay in Iraq untill they were put out of it and , of course,provide evidence of ethnic cleansing and genocide while they are there.

Or one could simply use analagous, rather than direct comparisons, and instead point to the Full Spectrum Dominance (if thats the correct term?) or "New World Order" which has the US indirectly controlling everything, and then look at the net increase of absolute poverty in the world which can in part be attributed to US-controlled interests like the IMF.

No, its not a direct comparison, and it is more relevant to the "US administrative policy" rather than Bush himself (which is probably the major reason I would argue that while similarities exist, they are not terribly relevant), but the fact remains that there are still valid comparisons to be made.

And before someone gets up on their high horse about it, I would be the first to agree that the US vision of world domination is infinitely preferable to the Nazi vision of their expanded empire, but that doesnt mean that either is a good thing for the conquered, or in any way acceptable.

In fact, I'll do it now. Given a choice of being controlled by the US or the Nazis, I choose the US. Given a third option of "not being controlled by a foreign nation", I'll take that as my first choice any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

jc

Originally posted by bonkey
Or one could simply use analagous, rather than direct comparisons, and instead point to the Full Spectrum Dominance (if thats the correct term?) or "New World Order" which has the US indirectly controlling everything, and then look at the net increase of absolute poverty in the world which can in part be attributed to US-controlled interests like the IMF.

jc

one could also point to their relative sucess in doing this, and the relative lack of sucess,by other countries or groups of countries.
Does anyone else find it a tad suspicious that the dollar has fallen 20% in the last year and the euro has risen?
Helping one Economy and harming the other...
Perhaps that was already discussed at lenght in another thread here and elsewhere...
But unless one likes communism or Nazism, there isn't any other example that immediately springs to mind of a counter balance.
If your field is world domination Economically and culturally, then the United states gets an A1, but it helps, if you have a large part of the free world thats willing to be led in this way either directly or indirectly.
Bushes bigest problem is as much his style and lack of charisma, mixed with a complete lack of believeable passion in his speeches, as his policies.
And thats something he definitely doesn't have in common with hitler.
mm

Hobbes

Originally posted by QBall
[BFirst of all Saddam was not a "non-existant threat". He didn't threaten the US directly but he was a threat to regional stability (see Iran-Iraq war and Gulf War I).[/B]

Wasn't the iran-iraq war helped in part by the US on Saddams side. Least that's what I remember of it.

(rest by man)

Neither was Bertie or many, many other honest decent leaders in the west are they like hitler too?

In that sense yes. Like I said similarities, not mirror images.

what the patriot act, that everyone seems to be complaining about...?
We have similar laws here and worldwide to catch Paedophiles an equally horrible offence in my book to Murder.

You obviously haven't read it. The paedophile part of the bill is in patriot act II. Not the first one.

Except today we have the media and the internet for to express our opinions and resource information, regardless of how wacky it is.

Because the selection of two random sites on the internet prove everything.

To make that comparison, the author would have to say that the U.S and the U.K were going to stay in Iraq untill they were put out of it

LOL. You think otherwise? While the UK had no problems leaving, the US won't be for a long time.

Given the net result, that blows that particular aspect of the Bush-Hitler comparison right out of the water and exposes it for the devilment that it is.

I believe that is called a strawman? Person A has similarties to person B who was evil. Person C is as evil as person B therefore person A does not share similarties with person B.

Sorry Man. That kind of Logic only works on robots in Star Trek.

The truth the stuff mentioned in that page I linked is documented history. Bush may not be evil, but he is certainly done an awful lot to compare him to Hitler (pre-WWII I might add).

Originally posted by Hobbes
I believe that is called a strawman? Person A has similarties to person B who was evil. Person C is as evil as person B therefore person A does not share similarties with person B.

Sorry Man. That kind of Logic only works on robots in Star Trek.

Yes Hobbes, you are learning:D
I believe it was Meh who pointed out to you what Straw man logic is

But I am not saying that you should say Bertie is as evil as hitler, I'm just saying that you can make the same comparisons on that particular point (ie: not having been elected by a majority) and by doing so , participate in the same devilment by creating an association with a genocidal maniac.
Of course you've qualified your position or rather changed it in your last post by saying:

but he is certainly done an awful lot to compare him to Hitler (pre-WWII I might add).

Whereas in the original post by you , to which I was replying, you offered the opinion:

No he's not into genocide, but give it time. Especially considering the US is now said it plans to use nukes.

which predicts that a U.S president will become a Genocidal maniac based on some spurious similarities with hitler.
now that , as I see it, is an association with Genocide and unwarranted imho.
And regarding the Patriot act:
I've read it all, it's one of the less wacky documents on the internet actually. What do you expect a country as big as the U.S to do, in the face of lunatics, like the guys flying those planes on Sept 11th...lie down??
Certainly Britain didn't when it kept re-newing the PTA.
If you are a law abiding citizen and can prove it, theres no need to worry,it's a war you know,tough measures have to be implimented at times, to catch those who would take advantage of a free society to visit their own warped mahem on it.
Otherwise, all freedoms would be gone.
mm

Sparks

But I am not saying that you should say Bertie is as evil as hitler, I'm just saying that you can make the same comparisons on that particular point (ie: not having been elected by a majority)

Thing is that that's an invalid comparison (the election by a minority bit) - Hitler and Bertie both got elected in a Proportional Representation system, but Bush was nominated in a First-past-the-post electoral college system. Different political systems - being nominated without the majority is normal and fair in one, not in the other.

which predicts that a U.S president will become a Genocidal maniac based on some spurious similarities with hitler.

It does nothing of the sort, it predicts that Bush's policies will lead to a de facto form of genocide based on his nuclear weapons policy.

I've read it all, it's one of the less wacky documents on the internet actually. What do you expect a country as big as the U.S to do, in the face of lunatics, like the guys flying those planes on Sept 11th...lie down??

Now that's the wackiest statement I've yet to see on the Patriot acts. And no, they're not expected to lie down, they're expected to protect their citizens - not take away their rights and break international law.

If you are a law abiding citizen and can prove it, theres no need to worry,it's a war you know,tough measures have to be implimented at times, to catch those who would take advantage of a free society to visit their own warped mahem on it.
Otherwise, all freedoms would be gone.

Wow, that's a warped version of reality right there.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by bonkey
Given a choice of being controlled by the US or the Nazis, I choose the US. Given a third option of "not being controlled by a foreign nation", I'll take that as my first choice any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

And how about option number four, the one that's actually on offer from the US, "liberated from a vile tyrant with minimal loss of life and offered the chance to construct a viable working democracy?"
I'd go for that one myself.

Sparks

Biffa,
That's not what's on offer from the US.

Zachary Taylor

Jed Clampett

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
And how about option number four, the one that's actually on offer from the US, "liberated from a vile tyrant with minimal loss of life and offered the chance to construct a viable working democracy?"
I'd go for that one myself.

Go and read what I wrote...edpecially the comment about Full Spectrum Dominance. Its been discussed here before, so I'm not going to even consider that you don't know what it is. Any debate which gives you a chance to try and rile people up by making the most "Ra Ra Go Team USA" comments imaginable, and you're there...so I think I can safely assume you've seen the topic discussed before.

Then, when you've read that again, explain to me how that does not equate to subservience on the part of all other nations. Then explain to me how that is any different to what I described?

If you're gonna keep trolling, you might as well try and sound convincing.

jc

Originally posted by Sparks
Thing is that that's an invalid comparison (the election by a minority bit) - Hitler and Bertie both got elected in a Proportional Representation system, but Bush was nominated in a First-past-the-post electoral college system. Different political systems - being nominated without the majority is normal and fair in one, not in the other.

Yes but a majority in both cases voted against, thats the comparison.
and Regarding:

It does nothing of the sort, it predicts that Bush's policies will lead to a de facto form of genocide based on his nuclear weapons policy.

Cough

Originally posted by Hobbes:
No he's not into genocide, but give it time. Especially considering the US is now said it plans to use nukes.

The word Genocide is used there, is it not? by both of ye in association with Bush, as a prediction of his future purpose.
Now to lend weight to that I'd like to see where he said that , and where, and on whom, is this specefic plan that Hobbes mentions aimed?

they're not expected to lie down, they're expected to protect their citizens - not take away their rights and break international law.

Well, we are talking in this part of our discussion about possible infringements upon the rights of U.S citizens here by their own government not about international law.
Their right to vote hasn't been taken away. In a democracy, a majority would have to be found to repeal these laws and , to be honest, theres enough people in the states scared out of their wits after 9-11, to have a thankfull attitude towards the patriot act.
I had a long chat with a woman, in Maceys who lives in manhattan, and was still afraid to go down to ground zero 18 months later.
Indeed I have many relatives over there, who aren't as worried about the patriot act as , apparently some of us here are, given the threat to their country.
That said there are many also who greatly oppose the patriot act and unfortunately it is their good intentions and the freedom that we have in the west, that makes it easier for terrorists to operate.

And your reaction to my assertion that:

If you are a law abiding citizen and can prove it, theres no need to worry,it's a war you know,tough measures have to be implimented at times, to catch those who would take advantage of a free society to visit their own warped mahem on it.

is:

Wow, that's a warped version of reality right there.

Well as we are talking in this section of our discussion about, terrorism in the united states and specifically 9-11, whats warped about tough laws to deal with those types of new threats?
After all we are talking about terrorists who have a warped view of Islam and are dis owned by, and attempt to sully the name of true believers of Islam.
mm

Sparks

Yes but a majority in both cases voted against, thats the comparison.

Incorrect. In the PR system, a majority does NOT vote against the winner. In the first-past-the-post-electoral-college system, the majority CAN voter against the winner, as happened in the US.

The word Genocide is used there, is it not? by both of ye in association with Bush, as a prediction of his future purpose.
Now to lend weight to that I'd like to see where he said that , and where, and on whom, is this specefic plan that Hobbes mentions aimed?

I said "de facto genocide". Not genocide. There's a difference.

Well, we are talking in this part of our discussion about possible infringements upon the rights of U.S citizens here by their own government not about international law.

Not possible infringements. Actual infringements.

Their right to vote hasn't been taken away. In a democracy, a majority would have to be found to repeal these laws and , to be honest, theres enough people in the states scared out of their wits after 9-11, to have a thankfull attitude towards the patriot act.

In a representative democracy, the majority do not get to repeal or pass laws.

I had a long chat with a woman, in Maceys who lives in manhattan, and was still afraid to go down to ground zero 18 months later.

And I know people that are scared of flying, of spiders, of rats, of snakes and a dozen other things. What's one person's fear got to do with passing legislation?

That said there are many also who greatly oppose the patriot act and unfortunately it is their good intentions and the freedom that we have in the west, that makes it easier for terrorists to operate.

And it is your reactionism and submission of authority to the government that makes it easier for terrorists to win.

Well as we are talking in this section of our discussion about, terrorism in the united states and specifically 9-11, whats warped about tough laws to deal with those types of new threats?

The idea that those laws will have any effect whatsoever.
*points to the yale mail room*
*points to the full range of paperwork held by the terrorists that flew into the WTC*
*points to the abuse of civil rights suffered by US citizens at the hands of the Bush administration under the patriot act*

The balance of evidence says that the patriot acts don't stop terrorism and do cause harm - that's why several states and cities are passing leglislation countering it even though federal law trumps state or local law.

After all we are talking about terrorists who have a warped view of Islam and are dis owned by, and attempt to sully the name of true believers of Islam.

And about a group of people with a warped idea of what a free country is.

Originally posted by Sparks
Incorrect. In the PR system, a majority does NOT vote against the winner. In the first-past-the-post-electoral-college system, the majority CAN voter against the winner, as happened in the US.

So the majority of people of the Republic of Ireland voted for a Labour Fianna Fáil coalition in 1992-I dont think so, and for a Fianna Fáil Taoiseach.
Thats right under PR a majority voted not to have a Fianna Fail Taoiseach, and thats what they got.

In a representative democracy, the majority do not get to repeal or pass laws.

Actually they do, if they vote in a government that wants to change a law.

And I know people that are scared of flying, of spiders, of rats, of snakes and a dozen other things. What's one person's fear got to do with passing legislation?

I never said it was representative of everybody, re-read my post, it's just an example of, a widely held view, just as is the opposite view. There will be elections there again you know, and Bush isn't safe.

And it is your reactionism and submission of authority to the government that makes it easier for terrorists to win.

how?? if I disagree with a policy, I'll make my view known in the ballot box-what are you saying there??

The balance of evidence says that the patriot acts don't stop terrorism and do cause harm - that's why several states and cities are passing leglislation countering it even though federal law trumps state or local law.

As is their right, but again it is a democracy and people can vote for something different.

And about a group of people with a warped idea of what a free country is.

A group of people, who have the whitehouse and both houses of congress at the moment, that won't always be the way, but it was voted that way.
I would be betting that , it will change in the near future, in the meantime, those that voted are free to ponder where they vote at the next election.
Really this is going Way off topic now.
mm

Sparks

While off topic, it's an important point to make -
You vote once every 4 or 5 years, depending on country - so when you cast your vote, which decision are you protesting with your vote, exactly?

Originally posted by Sparks
While off topic, it's an important point to make -
You vote once every 4 or 5 years, depending on country - so when you cast your vote, which decision are you protesting with your vote, exactly?

Well in the case of the last election a lot of people protested, at the state of the health service and several independent single issue candidates got elected.
Now people, went on the experiences of the Mildred Foxes and Jackie healy Rea's of the previous Dáil and thought they would get what they want by propping up a minority government.
As it happened, enough people voted FF and PD to return, the previous administration, without recourse to independent support.
But that protest vote could have opened a lot of local hospitals ( in an ineffecient manner, but thats also another debate entirely)
The fact remains, that , if enough of the U.S people want rid of, the Republicans, they will get rid of them, they've done it before and they will do it again.
I agree it is an important point you've made,you are an advocate of direct democracy swiss style,Yes?
So understandably, you take the view you've outlined.The protest or acceptance varies from person to person obviously.
But to impliment that system, you have to persuade people to agree with it,and in our democracy, that starts with either getting elected yourself, or persuading a party to take it on as a policy to impliment and they getting elected in suffecient numbers.
So it requires persuading and getting the agreement of a lot of people.
Out on the campaign trail with ya now:p
and mean while people here can get on with comparing bush with somebody or thing:D
mm