Euro-Dopers - why do you hate Bush?

Great Debates
1

First of all - I am looking for genuine opinions from genuine people who are neither US citizens or US residents.
Secondly - I don’t want to start a flame war here so please refrain form general insults and accusations in answering the question. So here is the meat of the question:

What has the Bush administration done that has caused you or your nation direct harm? Honestly I can not come up with any answers (from a Europen perspective)for that question that are not either based on national pride or in a general dislike of conservative American culture.

Yes I do support Bush obviously but I am not trying to trick anyone into a socratic argument or anything - I am genuinely interested in what it is that gets Europeans so angry when it comes to Bush.

To clarify - please do not answer by telling me what Bush has done - I know curent events - so don’t say “He invaded Iraq without the approval of the UN security council.” I know. Tell me how his doing that has harmed you as an individual or your state as a nation. Also don’t over-generalize with accusations. So don’t say “He propagates American Imperialism.” If you believe that to be the case then tell how that “imperialism” has directly harmed you as an individual or your state as a nation. Likewise for his personality - don’t say “He is an uncouth American cowboy.” If that is so tell how that has hurt you, etc. I am looking for real thoughtful answers – not just the same tired old rhetoric.

Again - I believe that the European objections to Bush are based on the following:

  1. Bush’s policies diminish the power of individual Europen countires in world politics
  2. Many Europeans dislike Bush because he represents a segment of America that Europeans find repugnant on cultural grounds alone

Every coherent argument I have heard from Europeans seems to based on one of those two objections. And if that is the case then, while I find the aruments valid from a European perspective, I am not inclined to value them as an American.

2

I do hope you realize that there are also a few Spanish members here?
Salaam. A

3

IMO…

He’s done nothing which particularly harms British interests. HOWEVER, national interests aren’t always the overriding factor in European politics. I guess it comes from the knowledge that we’re all fairly small fry as individuals, so there’s no point trying to act as superpowers.

I wouldn’t say that I hate Bush. I’d say I can’t trust him as far as I can throw an SUV. I don’t feel the world (and it’s necessary to talk in those terms because he does have a dominant position over the world) cannot rely on him to not be swayed by the multitude of self-interests surrounding him. And that he doesn’t have the capablity to see the manipulative behaviour of others.

Oh, and yes, I do think he’s as thick as two short planks and only got where he is because of the family name.

4

GorillaMan’s answer is the type of thing I am looking for.

As for the Spanish question - that is type of hype that is not valid to this conversation because you would have to believe that Bush ordered the bombings in Madrid and that would be stupid. If you believe that the bombings occured because of Spain’s compliance in the Iraq war then that is the fault of the Spanish government not the Bush administration. No one forced Spain to take part in the war. Many other European countries did not participate and they have probably benefitted polically for not going for Iraq.

5

His administration has undermined international law, and international institutions. This makes the world less stable, and more dangerous, which will affect the UK.

His administration has refused to admit global warming is even happening, let alone do something about it. Global warming will affect every country on earth, including the UK.

6

I am sorry but I find the OP to be of industrial strength stupidity. What has President Bush done that has affected me personally? And I can’t take into account what he has done to the world and to others? That would be like asking Americans what Bin Laden has done the each one personally. Forget about what he has done in general, just tell me what has he done to you that you hate the man so much. Come on, confess that you Americans are irrational and bloodthirsty! Gimme a break.

Of course the main reasons I dislike his policies do not affect me directly. If the only reasons to like or dislike someone are those that affect you very directly then my opinion of you is very low.

But since you asked: His policies have meant great harassment for me when I travel and, as a result I am traveling less.

I would be petty and shortsighted if I judged the man by how he has inconvenienced me personally though. I judge him by his policies and I think they have been a disaster for America and for the world.

Now tell me. . . why do you hate Bin Laden if he’s done nothing to you?

7

True - no argument there.

Ok - but how? How does international law make the UK safer? What international institutions has he undermined and how has that hurt the UK? Does the UN make the world more stable? You will have a hard time convincing me of that – I would like a specific incident in which a UN decision has led to more stability. And if your believe your statement to be true do you think then that the UK should follow all UN mandates - UK has a hard enough time coming to agreement with the EU?

8

Please read the OP before commenting on it. Not just you as an individual but also your state as a nation.

If you can not back up your beliefs with valid reasons than you are the one who is irrational. I ask for examples because that is how rational human beings understand the world. We form our opinions based on our experiance.

I’ll answer the question based on the reasons I asked for in the original post. Again I assume you can read so you must have either not read the OP or you purposely left out the “state as a nation” part on purpose. If you didn’t read it then please do so next time before commenting - if you did read it and you left it out then I have to assume that you did so because you had no good answer to it.

Bin Laden killed 3000 of my countrymen and destroyed a symbol of pride in the US. He has stated that he wants to murder me and my wife and children and just about everyone I know. He wants to destroy my country, my culture and my religion. He is right at this moment working to achieve those goals. These are not empty allegations or insinuations but words from his own mouth. It would be irrational for me not to hate him.

9

Thanks to him I can’t meet my Sweetie at the gate when she gets off her airplane. And they confiscated a real neat laser pointer key chain because of his actions. And then there were all those people dying, including some people know by my friends from NYC.

10

To answer your questions one part of international law states that countries cannot wage war except in self defense, or after UNSC authorisation. I’m sure i don’t have to point out how this makes the UK safer. The UN provides peacekeepers (and negotiaters) thoughout the world to help stop wars, or at least stop them escalating into larger conflicts, making the world more stable. For a list of UN peacekeeper missions see
here . And yes i do believe the UK should follow all UN mandates. Although i support the Iraq war if it leads to a stable democracy, i don’t think the UK should have got involved without a clearer UN mandate.

However seeing as you have accepted my other point, will you now take back your assertion that

and admit that at least some Europeans object to Bush for other reasons?

Most reasonable peoples’ objection to Bush are not based on individual or even national interests though, although there are national interest based reasons to be against him too as i have said. I’m guessing that you hold conservative views? Do you hold them because they would benefit you personally, or because you think they would benefit society as a whole? I hope the latter. In the same way, most people are against Bush because they think his international policies are harming the world, not because of any narrow individual or national interest.

11

Well how about the US refusal to ratify the International Criminal Court ?(ICC)
If the US were to ratify it, this would be a massive boost to credibility and other non-signees would soon follow, the powerful should always set the example for others, as failure is an abrogation of responsibilty.

The idea in its original concept was to come up with a framework whereby criminal individuals could be tried for many more crimes than can be brought before the Haig, which deals with ‘crimes against humanity’

http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive_Index/rome_statute.html

There are many instances where grievous crimes are committed by individuals for personal gain and the perpetrators are protected by corrupt nations and failed states, Somalia or Serbia are very good candidates.
The crimes may be horrendous but not classed as state sponsored crimes nor crimes against humanity which can be too imprecise a term to deal with many offences.

The ICC would have had a much wider remit than the Hague but would include the crimes that the Hague does deal with, but it would be virtually a law system which would take precedence over local national laws if it could be shown that these Nations had inadequate judicial protection and procedures.

The crucial test would be to prove that local National laws are inadequate and effectively protect criminals, and this is usually the case where perhaps the sovereignty of some civil war torn nation is in some doubt, or just a totally corrupt nation.

The US wants exemptions for its citizens on the grounds that ‘political’ committal proceedings could be started against its citizens and military working away from its shores, and that no law can takes precednce over the US Constitution.

Bush is too damn stupid to understand the first part of my reply, which is that since the US has effective, fair and independant judicial system(compared to much of the rest of the world), there is no reason why the ICC would have to step in, same as in every country that has an independant judical system.

In other words, the ICC will not take precedence in such nations, it actually guaruntees a minimum standard, whereas the US judicial system, along with all advanced nations, is far above that minimum.

The US position seems to be that spurious charges might be brough against the likes of say Dr Henry Kissinger, or even a plain old US grunt just for political purposes, but this cannot happen due to the requirement to prove that US law has shortcomings that it cannot address.

It means that people who have suffered in Bosnia, Sierra Leone, Angola, Rwanda or anywhere where there has been effectively no judicial system do not have real recourse to justice, they have to work it out for themselves by seizing power.
The result is that although some are being tried in the Hague, it is nothing like the number who should be arraigned.

Bush opposes the ICC for its own political fears, which are pretty much groundless.

The situation with the Guantanamo Bay detainnees would be interesting, given the transparent manipulation to try and avoid external scrutiny I guess the US might not want ICC to be notified.

The US claims to be a paragon of democratic virtue but the Guantanamo Bay detainees lend the lie to that, if justice is open, then it is just.

I’m not saying Guantanamo detainees should be freed, they should be charged with any possible crimes and then tried in a transparent manner.

This is just one instance of the double standards of the US, and since Bush os at the centre of the issue, then he is the one who must be derided contemptuously

Now this site has a definate bias, however it does state things clearly and simply,

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/etinternationallaw/johansenusoppositiontoicc.htm

The behaviour of Bush is actually stupid in another way, for had the US actually supported the ICC, it would have been possible to charge Saddam Hussain for his crimes, it is very likely he would have been convicted and that might even have provided a very useful tool to justify war to obtain his presence in court.

When there is a prospect of a legal system that actually holds the leaders of nations directly to account there is understandably some nevousness, but when you look at the way law works in advanced nations, the law itself has a sovereignty above that of those same leaders.

Other advanced nations have no problem, they don’t see any serious conflict between the ICC and their own nations’ constitutions, and few nations are as jealous of their national rights as the French.

This alone makes Bush an unlikeable figure.

12

Heh. I’m (a proud) European (with a Spanish wife – btw. more than 40% did not vote socialist) and I don’t hate Bush. I’d choose Bush over Kerry any day of the week. I don’t much love him either; I think he has been an ass economy wise, which will come to have a negative effect on me personally (right now the depressed dollar has a positive effect on my life). Most of all he is your president, not mine – you have the right to choose what ever the hell president you want. We sure elect some asshats here in Europe too sometimes.

  • Rune
13

kidchameleon, just in case it wasn’t clear from the context, mine was not a serious question.

HumptysHamhole, the world is my nation and the entire human race my family. I would not defend any policy from any country if it was at the expense of other countries.

I often spend time in China and the topic of the Human Rights record of the Chinese government comes up for discussion and I tell them I cannot ignore it. They tell me why should I care if the Chinese government has imprisoned some dissident. It is their business, their internal affair and western countries should butt out. But I disagree. If a Chinese man is unjustly imprisoned, it is my business as a decent human to do what I can to correct the situation, even if all I can do is express my dissent. When people are imprisoned and denied their most basic human rights that is an affront to me and to all decent people.

there is no such thing that is good for one country but bad for the rest of the world or viceversa. Things are either good or bad and IMHO and considered on the whole the policies of GWB are bad for the USA and bad for the world. The fact that they may not directly adversely affect a particular person or country is irrelevant.

14

As I’m an American I’m not going to answer the OP. However, I have a brief question to Planet of the Shapes. You say one reason you ‘hate’ Bush is because he “has undermined international law, and international institutions”, by which you further refine by stating “one part of international law states that countries cannot wage war except in self defense, or after UNSC authorisation”. However, and correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t Britian (where I assume you are from) part of the NATO force in Bosnia…which also didn’t have UNSC authorization? Why wasn’t or didn’t that also undermine international law, etc etc? Or was that ok? If so, why?

I’m not trying to defend the US’s actions and what they did in Iraq BTW (being as they are indefense-able, but for different reasons IMO)…but if you ‘hate’ Bush for doing this, how do you feel about NATO for also doing something very similar, at least as far as UNSC authorization goes?

-XT

15

Good question, xtisme. First of all, let me say that I don’t hate Bush, I disapprove of him and his international policies very strongly. I interpreted the OP as “give reasons on individual/national interest grounds why you are against Bush”. Admittedly answering the question without adding a disclaimer does imply that I hate Bush, but I’m adding that disclaimer now!

Anyway, to answer your question, I’m afraid I’m not very familiar with the Bosnia situation. However it is my understanding that it was a civil war between parts of the former Yugoslavia, and that the Serbs committed genocidal acts. NATO undertook air strikes against Serb forces to try to stop them.

I’m no expert, but it seems to me that intervention in a civil war to prevent war crimes would be in a grey area with respect to international law? NATO didn’t invade a sovereign nation, but conducted air strikes against Serb forces to prevent war crimes. You could argue NATO was trying to uphold international law.

If my argument is incorrect and that action was in violation of international law, then I guess I would be against them, NATO should have sought UNSC authorisation before intervening. I don’t think international law is perfect by any means, it allows oppressive regimes to continue operating, prevents action from happening when it could do good etc… But I do think its better than no international law at all. We should be working to change it, not ignore it altogether.

16

Why did Americans hate Hitler?
He did nothing to America, was it envy because he made Germany strong again just like GWB is trying to do with the USA?

Though it may have something to do with gaining strength at some other countries expense. Hmmm.

17

Sounds to me like a reason to hate Europeans, not Bush.

Please. Europe should have shown such a hatred for Hitler in 1939.

18

Thanks for the reply Planet of the Shapes. I have to admit my own understanding of Bosnia is sketchy also. My understanding (which will probably be violently corrected if I’m wrong) is that NATO decided to intervene in Bosnia without UNSC approval. They also were unable to use the Charter rules on self defense, as they were not directly threatened but were intervening in a civil war (as well as genocide). It was more than air strikes though, as I think that ground forces were also deployed from several European countries.

No, any or all of the above could be wrong. I’m at work and don’t have time to go into deep research mode on this…its just how I remember. Personally, I think NATO and the European nations were justified in doing what they were doing, despite not haveing UNSC approval (if I’m right and they didn’t). However, by the strict sense of the law that the US is being held to with Iraq, it was ‘wrong’ and ‘illegal’ for them to do what they did. I’m not looking to score any points here, but I’ve always been curious how Europeans see the whole Bosnia thing.

Well, I don’t know if America necessarily ‘hated’ Hitler prior to the war, but you are dead wrong that he did nothing to us. He was sinking our shipping long before we officially entered the war. In fact, there was an almost de-facto war going on between our Navies long before we formally declared war. In addition, I’m sure a lot of American’s were pretty unhappy at Hitler…were exactly do you think a lot American’s come from originally? Places like France, Holland, Britian, etc etc. Ring any bells?

-XT

19

Not similar, not similar at all.

There was never any pretend threat to the US or NATO.

There was no false intelligence.

What was happening in Kosovo was verifiable, it followed a pattern that had been repeated by a loathsme nationlistic dictator.

The UN was crippled by the interests of Russia in particular and by France as a sideline, but never did they deny that ethnic killing was going on.

There was a certain amount of political courage, becasue NATO nations really did not have oil or other strategic reserves at stake, and most saw it as humanitarian, and still do.
It took a certain amount of moral leadership to crush the evil that the Serbs were visiting upon the downtrodden majority population, which had some horrific echoes of the past.
A minority nation was setting itself up as a master race and killing and murdering its way to a position of strength.

I seriously doubt that even Russia itself would deny the the behaviour of Serbia was anything but reprehensible, and I would not be surprised at them being glad that once Serbias excesses had been held in check forcibly that they would not have to worry about the future behaviour of such an embarrassing ally.

There is no doubt to me that Russian support for Serbia cost it some influence and international respect, as Serbia was so clearly wrong.

Now contrast that to Iraq.

This time the US has lost international respect.

Bush is directly responsible for that, frankly if I were a republican I would be concerned that the Bush administration was tarnishing my values, and storing up a whole lot of electoral consequencies, maybe not even in the next presidential temr, but what goes around comes back around, republicans might yet regret the moral vacumm that is Bush and his company sponsored adminstration represents.

20

Well, I think we got a tad angry at him when Germany declared war on the US.

Call me crazy, but I generally don’t like it when one country declares war on my country.