Why do I hate Bush so much?

[John_Mace]

@SentientMeat

the “average” of all the American states sits well to the political right of that of the equivalent geopolitical entities in Europe, Japan, Canada, Australasia and anywhere else which could be described as an industrialised democracy (with the exception of Israel, and even they are a “social” democracy, fiscally speaking). Can you offer an example wherein the US sits to the left of the rest of the industrialised democratic world?

Well, I offered one in my first post-- SSM is allowed in Massachusetts. Are there more than 3 or 4 other countries where you can do this in any state/province/whatever?

But my main problem is with your use of “massively”. No one is going to argue that the US, as a whole, is more left leaning than your typical European country. But the the US is much larger and more geographically diverse than any European country (not counting Russia), and therefore taking an “average” has very little meaning.

You may look at the current administration and say “Wow, Americans are really rightwingers” and yet it wasn’t that long ago that a very different administration and Congress held sway in a much more centrist position. Did America change? No, it’s by and large the same people with the same political beliefs.

We’re a pretty evenly divided society, and sometimes the scales tip more one way than the other.

[jjimm]

OK, xitsme, the paragraph against which I was arguing wasn’t terribly clear. I took “‘we’ who opposed the war” to mean those who opposed the Iraq war, and therefore got the impression you were tarring all anti-Iraq-war protestors. I now more clearly understand what you were trying to say.

@John Mace

taking an “average” has very little meaning

Isn’t that what you guys are going to do in November?

We’re a pretty evenly divided society, and sometimes the scales tip more one way than the other.

But the US definition of even, or the centrepoint, is way far to the right of the rest of the industrialised world. Kerry is more like a UK Conservative (note big C) or a German Christian Democrat than a LibDem or a Labour man.

[yojimbo]

@John Mace

You may look at the current administration and say “Wow, Americans are really rightwingers” and yet it wasn’t that long ago that a very different administration and Congress held sway in a much more centrist position. Did America change? No, it’s by and large the same people with the same political beliefs.

We’re a pretty evenly divided society, and sometimes the scales tip more one way than the other.

Well IMO the last admin and the one before them and the one before them etc where right wing as far as I’m concerned. This isn’t really a GOP thing as the Dems are also relatively right wing when compared to most Euro parties that I’m familiar with.

[rjung]

@jjimm

Is duffer indicative of Republican denial, or does he genuinely just want the stats?

Nah. Most Bush-voting Republicans, when informed that most of the world is P.O.'d at Bush, prefer to simply retort, “Who cares what they think?”

[Kluge]

@Rune

uunweisenheimer was setting up a hypothetical position based on Madelene Albright’s infamous “was it worth it” which was a response to a question whether the half a million alleged dead Iraqi children, killed as a consequence of the sanctions was worth the sacrifice of upholding the sanctions. If uunweisenheimer gets to propose hypothetical scenarios so do I, and if we for the sake of argument accept that number of deaths for a fact I do not find it unreasonable to project another half a million deaths had the sanctions been continued – which would have been the only realistic alternative to the war. I dunno, perhaps uunweisenheimer think Saddam would have converted to Hara Krishna and gone into voluntary celibacy in a monastery in India, whereafter the sanctions could have been lifted in any case – personally I doubt it. But I see uunweisenheimer didn’t answer, so I don’t see why I should answer uunweisenheimer’s.

My apologies. I misunderstood exactly what was meant by your question.

@Rune

A culture is not a people wherefore the mark “genocide“ is misattributed. Yes I believe the Taliban, Wahabbism and other forms of Islamism are comparable to Nazism and should be eradicated – undoubtedly many people would die in such a confrontation, but that would be, to paraphrase another great man (joke!), collateral damage. Naturally I do not believe all Afghans or Saudies – or 1945 Germans, should be killed.

To destroy a culture, you’d pretty much have to commit some form of genocide. I can’t see any way around it. But I suppose when you put it in less harsh terms, I can understand your viewpoint. I don’t agree with you, but I understand where you’re coming from.

[uunweisenheimer]

@Rune

uunweisenheimer was setting up a hypothetical position based on Madelene Albright’s infamous “was it worth it” which was a response to a question whether the half a million alleged dead Iraqi children, killed as a consequence of the sanctions was worth the sacrifice of upholding the sanctions. If uunweisenheimer gets to propose hypothetical scenarios so do I, and if we for the sake of argument accept that number of deaths for a fact I do not find it unreasonable to project another half a million deaths had the sanctions been continued – which would have been the only realistic alternative to the war. I dunno, perhaps uunweisenheimer think Saddam would have converted to Hara Krishna and gone into voluntary celibacy in a monastery in India, whereafter the sanctions could have been lifted in any case – personally I doubt it. But I see uunweisenheimer didn’t answer, so I don’t see why I should answer uunweisenheimer’s.

? It was not me who raised the hypothetical question of how many children would not be killed if we had not invaded Iraq. I merely cited the quotation by Albright who was asked the question of whether the deaths of 500,000 innocent Iraqi civilians because of the sanctions and bombings was “worth it”. She answered in the affirmative. I believe it is you who turned the quote on its head to make it a hypothetical question. Since you believe that the numbers cited by UNICEF are not to be believed, who should we cite? That was not a hypothetical number.

[phouka]

Aside from the issues already mentioned, I’d like to bring up one not discussed in this thread:

The deficit.

We went from having a projected 10-year surplus of over a trillion dollars to the largest deficit in our nation’s history. I don’t blame Bush for the economy tanking. Between the dotcom bubble burst and 9/11, it was fairly inevitable. What I blame him for is the way he handled it. If you’re going into war and your country is running up a $15 trillion deficit, the last thing you need to do is cut taxes, especially in the lopsided manner he chose. Three times. And he’s talking about doing it again.

Of course, he had to have Congress’ consent, not to mention the interest of the voters. Hey, I’d like to get back more of my tax money just like anyone else, but not at the price of assfucking the economy for the next decade. I hope to God the voting public doesn’t fall for that line again come November, but knowing how my neocon friends slaver at the thought of another tax cut, I’m not counting on it.

[elucidator]

@msmith537

…Almost makes me want to become a “naive liberal douche”.

Don’t. Remain a conservative, but an honest conservative. Get rid of those ideological warthogs and the Bible-thumping retards they depend upon. Tell the corporate gluttons that you’re not for sale.

Sing with Olaf, glad and big, that there is some shit you will not eat.

Then we can argue! Argue hard, argue clean, argue with facts. And our country…our beloved country…will be much the better for it.

[kanicbird]

I don’t want to put aside your hatred, though I do think it is misplaced/

I hate this Administration. Aside from the basic fact that Bush was appointed to the office of President rather than honestly elected,

According to the US Constitution he IS the president, what rules are you using and what authority does that have? In short you are not stating the truth.

that his brand of compassionate conservatism is neither,

Really I have been able to buy that new muffler that I have been putting off due to his tax cut, not only that I have been able to HIRE someone, which I haven’t been able to do for years due to reduced tax burden.

that his erosion of the barrier between church and state is simply fundamentalism of a slightly different flavor

You will have to explain this further and it could be applies to most Pres’s.

, the blatant war profiteering by his Vice President and many of his major campaign contributors

I’m not asking for a cite here, but absolute proof, or at least beyond a reasonable doubt which is the standard we use here. W/o that this statement serves more to discredit you then W.

, the erosion of the Bill of Rights under his watch and supported by his appointees

IIRC W sat quitely while Moore’s file was airred, while Kerry is trying to deny the SwiftBoat Vets F. T. their right to speach. Maybe you mean that W wants to deny the right of the citizens to be able to defend themselves? Your statement is not all that clear.

, the personal embarrassment that I feel in that arguably the most powerful man in the world didn’t hold a passport until elected president (much less ever travelled outside of North America)

I’m glad your embarasses, he has to protect THIS country, not ‘that’ country. He has advisors to inform him of foreign country’s customs. Actually I think you should embarrased that you were embarrassed. Again another non-issue.

and never forgetting that I think he’s a fool and a puppet for multiple big corporations, I feel he has managed to do what no other US President has ever managed to do to the same degree – truly answer the question of ‘Why do they hate us?’

Yes I know that and knew that before I read your post. Actually I think your ‘feelings’ about the subject if acted upon would lead to disastrous consequences.

After 9-11, the United States and George Bush were presented with a unique opportunity to do something, with the support of the entire developed world. Bush could have done what no other president ever had the opportunity to do –unite free people the world over to a common cause. He could have started us on the road to ensure we, and many others, could live a safer life without the spectre of Islamic fundamentalism seeping into our lives. All of which he promised to do, and all of which Bush had the nearly universal support of our allies to do, and all of which he has failed to do dramatically and repeatedly.

Actually I think that the ‘free world’ were ‘united’ years ago in a treaty called NATO. And W did do something, he defended this country which IS his primary responsibility, and I’m sorry appeasing France and Germany, who was getting a kickback from the food for oil program btw, was not high on his priority list, well actually I’m not (if you can’t tell).

Instead, with his ‘With Us or Against Us’ and ‘Dead or Alive’ and WMD and Iraq and ‘Bring it On’ and ‘Axis of Evil’ and ‘Mission Accomplished’ he managed to alienate our allies, enrage our enemies, and push moderate Islam to the sidelines.

I totally disagree, he found our true allies and make it clear to those who where just palying w/ us that it will no longer be tollerated. I also think that non-terrorism Islam is more on the center stage then EVER before in human history.

Bush gave strength to fundamentalist fanatics the world over, especially in Iran and Saudi Arabia (forget about Iraq for now – that’s a whole other quagmire). He gives the exhortations of the Mullahs and Imams about the Evil Americans weight, and in doing so has given them the political power to sideline the moderates in government and destroy any chance of a youthful society throwing off the yoke of fundamentalist theocracy (which was well on the way in Iran before the ‘Axis of Evil’ speech).

No just the opposite, there was no/little pressure to change the minds of the youth in the past, it actually offered a glorious choice. Now they know they will be opposed by the most powerful, and most technologically advanced nation EVER to be on the face on the earth to date.

The policies of his administration has, instead of ‘drained the swamp’ of terrorist-sponsoring nations in the Middle East, created one huge jungle in which they can thrive, train, and attack US forces on a nearly daily basis, inflicting casualties that mainstream US citizens rarely hear about anymore and never see, without any apparent capability on our part to stop such attacks.

Yes the US has had as many attacks since 9/11/01 then before :rolleyes: , I don’t knwo where youv’e been but we had NO major attacks even minor ones were caught.

Bush has brought from darkest obscurity to worldwide fame the names of extremists, such as Muqtada al-Sadr, who truly wish to destroy America and are willing to kill hundreds if not thousands of their own countrymen to damage US interests, and made them into fundamentalist heroes due to their willingness to fight to protect holy Islamic sites from Western Crusaders.

OK let them show themselves publically, I’m sure a missile will follow

Bush’s strategy of pre-emptive strike has dismayed our allies to the point that they have refused to support us without evidence. When we can’t provide evidence to the level required to actually satisfy the UN or NATO, we ridicule them and ignore them, calling them out of date or useless, and pursue our own agenda in violation of multiple treaties and in complete defiance of over 3 decades of public sentiment.

Actually this is a lie, the UN has authorized force (severe consequences) against Iraq if they don’t comply w/ inspections (note not having WMD). We just enforced the policy of the UN.

We have taken our treasured ‘we won’t attack first’ doctrine, which weathered and won the cold war

No again a misstatment to say the least, I would suggest ‘we won’t attack 1st if it will lead to a greater loss of US life then not attacking’.

, and instead have replaced it with pre-emptive attacks on countries that ‘may’ have the ability ‘in future’ or who ‘were once actively pursuing weapons’ which ‘might someday’ harm the United States or our Allies.

Just like the Confederacy? or Germany, or Korea, or Veitnam, or the 1st gulf war?

We have disregarded the Geneva Convention

Well it appears Kerry did, but perhaps not due to what I heard lately, well have to see how it turns out. Also the GC only applies to emeny warriors, as such we have not.

(above and beyond circumventing our own Constitution, but that only applies to our citizens so I won’t really talk about that)

Then don’t - it does NOT apply and is a non-issue and only shows your own agenda.

in the treatment of POWs and the execution of our adventures in Iraq, Afghanistan, and throughout the rest of the world. We have used munitions (such as carpet bombing, cluster bombs, ‘non-napalm’ fire bombs, depleted uranium munitions, and land mines) and tactics (such as torture) that have caused international human rights organizations to heap scorn upon the US.

I don’t believe that any of the above are prohibited by the GC (assumeing your non-napalm’ fire bombs are fuel-air weapons.

(One US Marine general was quoted as saying ‘the grunts love napalm; it’s great for morale’ as an excuse for using it in Iraq.)

I’m sure that some members of the air core said Little Boy was good for moral during WW2, also IIRC Napalm is not banned by the GC either.

We are holding people for years without trial, access to independent council, or even charges being filed, including US citizens and legal citizens of allied nations such as the UK.

The enemy are not US citizens, allied nations are respected and if they feel their citizens are being held w/o cause they would squak.

We didn’t treat the Nazis at Nuremburg this badly after 4 years of open warfare and documented cases of genocide.

No we executed them.

And guess who’s checking the Pentagon’s homework on if these people should continue to be held – that’s right, the Pentagon!

, perhaps you would be a better choice

Bush’s state visit to the UK was a perfect example of how arrogant his Administration is. He was to visit Queen Elizabeth II and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, perhaps the number 2 and 3 terrorist targets in the world after Bush himself (OK, the Pope is somewhere in there, too). So you would think, with the UK police forces and intelligence agencies’ vast and lengthy experience in battling terrorists such as the Real IRA in their own country and worldwide and with a long track record in protecting both government ministers and the Royal Family, that the Secret Service would be satisfied with these local security service’s ability to defend the President on his visit. You would be wrong.

The Secret Service attempted to rebuild Buckingham Palace with armoured windows and machine-gun nests on the grounds (paid for by the UK taxpayer, of course, which the UK Government refused to do), insisted all Secret Service officers (especially snipers) have diplomatic immunity whilst in the line of duty (which the British Government flatly refused to grant), wanted to have Blackhawk helicopters (fully armed with miniguns and rockets and with a squad of ‘special forces’ aboard each) flying over the Palace during the whole of his visit (again, denied), as well as shutting down the London Underground, the sole means of transportation for some 1 million Londoners and the only semi-fast method of transport across this crowded and gridlocked major city, which would have cost the City of London some £1,000,000 per day in lost revenues (denied again, but only at the vehement insistence of the Mayor of London). The infamous free-speech zones were attempted here as well, which was totally laughed off by the Government and the Mayor of the London, and the route that Bush took from Heathrow into London to the Palace was lined with protestors (of course, he took a helicopter so he wouldn’t have to see any of it, but the traffic pile-ups in London were truly huge). The Secret Service caused over £200,000 worth of straight-up damage to the palace and the grounds in their 3 day visit (which still hasn’t been paid back to the Crown), and didn’t pay anything for the amount of income lost to London businesses due to arbitrary road closures and draconian security requirements of guarding the President (which some estimates hold at £600-700,000). In US terms, that’s nearly $2 million in damage and lost wages for 3 days of a state visit, none of which has been repaid by the Administration. For that would be to admit guilt, which is something Bush and his Administration are pathologically incapable of doing.

Well an aside, Clinton seemed to only go to NYC during rush hour causing major traffic jams too, unfortunatly this is one of the costs of having world leaders - deal w/ it, the rest of us do.

This is how this Administration treats our friends. This is our ally, which is supporting our efforts in Iraq with troops and money, which has stood by us for over 200 years and supported our policies internationally for most of that time.

Now think of the people we don’t like, who don’t support our policies. And think of the ham-fisted and thumb-fingered approach to realpolitik that this Administration seems to excel in. And now you know the answer – they hate us, if not before, now because of George W. Bush and his Administration.

If it’s really that they hate W then it should be quickly repaired in '08 when he can’t run for a 3rd term, so don’t loose any sleep over it.

[GomiBoy]

@kanicbird

I don’t want to put aside your hatred, though I do think it is misplaced

According to the US Constitution he IS the president, what rules are you using and what authority does that have? In short you are not stating the truth.

I put that aside for very valid reasons - it has been talked to death. But to answer your question, I think the multiple questions around voting discrepancies in various battleground states, most importantly Florida, followed by the decision by the US Supreme Court to appoint Bush president are pretty sound reasons for me to doubt that he legitimately won the 2000 election.

Care to keep with the original premise, that Bush and Co have created a climate in which millions of moderate Muslims the world over now hate America which wasn’t the case before?

IIRC W sat quitely while Moore’s file was airred, while Kerry is trying to deny the SwiftBoat Vets F. T. their right to speach. Maybe you mean that W wants to deny the right of the citizens to be able to defend themselves? Your statement is not all that clear.

Kerry has never tried to ‘Silence’ SBVFT. He just wants them to accurately represent the truth as reported in the US military records, and disputes what they say when what they say isn’t true.

I’m glad your embarasses, he has to protect THIS country, not ‘that’ country. He has advisors to inform him of foreign country’s customs. Actually I think you should embarrased that you were embarrassed. Again another non-issue.

WTF? So the leader of the free world shouldn’t know anything about it outside the borders of the US? He should never have traveled anywhere outside the borders of the US prior to becoming leader of it? I think that this is the most naive and short-sighted thing I have ever heard…

Yes I know that and knew that before I read your post. Actually I think your ‘feelings’ about the subject if acted upon would lead to disastrous consequences.

Your logic evades me in this… care to explain?

Actually I think that the ‘free world’ were ‘united’ years ago in a treaty called NATO. And W did do something, he defended this country which IS his primary responsibility, and I’m sorry appeasing France and Germany, who was getting a kickback from the food for oil program btw, was not high on his priority list, well actually I’m not (if you can’t tell).

Yes, thanks - then where is NATO now? After 9-11, NATO invoked Article 5 of it’s charter, pledging the full military support of ALL of NATO to the US to defend itself from attack. Where were the hordes of NATO troops helping us in Iraq? Above and beyond France and Germany, who I admit were pretty sketchy in their links to Iraq, what about the other 11 nations in NATO? Only the UK supported the war in Iraq. Where were all our other allies?

I totally disagree, he found our true allies and make it clear to those who where just palying w/ us that it will no longer be tollerated. I also think that non-terrorism Islam is more on the center stage then EVER before in human history.

Well, I disagree. Hell, we can’t even talk to our FRIENDS right now - the UK is tired of doing our shit work and none of the other NATO or UN allies are willing to listen to cowboys who ignore their advice; how well do you think we’re thought of in Saudi or Iran right now? And I know you don’t care, but those of us who have some level of geopolitical interest and intelligence know that you can’t kill them all, and that at some point we’re going to need some help to find them to stop them.

No just the opposite, there was no/little pressure to change the minds of the youth in the past, it actually offered a glorious choice. Now they know they will be opposed by the most powerful, and most technologically advanced nation EVER to be on the face on the earth to date.

Absolute bollocks! THere was a rising anti-fundamentalist movement in Iran amongst 18-30 year olds. These were children of the 10-year war with Iraq, children who survied the Ayatollahs and the sanctions. They want westernization; they want liberalisation. They still do, but now the mullahs, thanks to the ham-handed way Bush and Co dealt with them, are back in power and supressing their population like never before. We’re talking the religious fervor of the Taliban, in Iran, terrorizing their own population.

And the opposition by Palestinians seems to have little to do with the fact that Israel can beat them militarily anytime they want. They still seem to be blowing themselves up in farily large numbers… what do you think is so different if Captain American can come in and clean house? Do you think the 9-11 hijakers gave a shit that we could turn their respective homelands into slightly glowing parking lots? It didn’t stop them for a minute, and it won’t stop the next generation of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists from picking up boxcutters and attempting the same thing. And they only have to succeed once. And if you think you’re that much more secure, then you’re living in a fantasy world.

Yes the US has had as many attacks since 9/11/01 then before :rolleyes: , I don’t knwo where youv’e been but we had NO major attacks even minor ones were caught.

What didn’t you understand? This is not just about the US, but about how the world’s largest and only superpower is to behave in the larger world. The US has not been attacked, but Spain has, and as a result pulled it’s troops out of Iraq and has changed it’s entire government and is close to pulling out of NATO. Bali has been attacked, killing more Australians than Americans although targeted at the Americans, and has again alienated one of our strongest allies.

And don’t even think about trying to tell me Iraq is a better place than before. We have serious unfinished business there, and no matter how it turns out we’re going to look like the big bully that beat the hell out of the small kid and took his lunch money.

[quote]

OK let them show themselves publically, I’m sure a missile will follow

[/quote

Yeah, I’m, confused too… what are you trying to say? We can hit anyone we want with a cruise missile? You’re saying we just need a picture? Fine, we’ve known where Muqtada al-Sadr has been for weeks. Why not a pony nuke on his location? Because apparently someone marginally smarter than a cantaloupe has decided that it would be counter-productive to make yet another Muslim martyr for the world to talk about and for fanatical muslims to uphold as a hero

Actually this is a lie, the UN has authorized force (severe consequences) against Iraq if they don’t comply w/ inspections (note not having WMD). We just enforced the policy of the UN.

Against the wishes of the UN general assembly? Or was there a vote of the Security Council that I missed in the run-up to us declaring the UN unable to stop us and therefore irrelevant?

No again a misstatment to say the least, I would suggest ‘we won’t attack 1st if it will lead to a greater loss of US life then not attacking’.

Obvisouly, you are forgetting 25 years of cold-war treaties and diplomacy that explicitly state that the US will never strike first… and the fact that pre-emptive defence is outlawed by the Geneva Convention. It’s the excuse the Nazis used to invade Poland and France. It was a lie then and it’s a lie now - we invaded Iraq for Oil…

Just like the Confederacy? or Germany, or Korea, or Veitnam, or the 1st gulf war?

Sorry, you flat out lost me there… what the hell does this refer to?

Well it appears Kerry did, but perhaps not due to what I heard lately, well have to see how it turns out. Also the GC only applies to emeny warriors, as such we have not.

So now we have neo-cons justifying their behavior by re-writing the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention applies to all armed conflict, and explicitly states what can and cannot be done with enemy soldiers, combatants, POWs, and enemy leaders.

Then don’t - it does NOT apply and is a non-issue and only shows your own agenda.

Hey -guess what? You don’t get to decide what are and aren’t issues. You can bring up your own, or you can refute mine, but you don’t get to decide what is and isn’t important to a discussion…

If it’s really that they hate W then it should be quickly repaired in '08 when he can’t run for a 3rd term, so don’t loose any sleep over it.

Obviously, your understanding of what this means is pretty limited. ANd clearly you don’t get why international relations are such an important part of Bush’s job.