h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

So you condem the son for the crimes of the father? Really Dela I know you dislike Bush but to compare him to saddam Hussien? Then to call him a pychopath who has been protected all his life? Come on della you can do better than that.

....And there have to be a first time for everything

The above was in answer to post 2740 by Della

"So you condem the son for the crimes of the father?"

Luckily Poppy is still alive, so he can still be held responsible for his actions. No, there are enough reasons to condemn Dubya for his own actions. Ignoring commitments to treaties, appointing fools to his cabinet after they had just lost elections (Spence Abraham lost a Congressional race and was appointed as Sec. of Energy, John Ashcroft lost an election to the wife of a candidate who just died), setting back nuclear disarmament about 30 years or further, starting a war against the wrong people because the right people are hiding too well. Not to mention the shady business dealings attributed to Dubya and many of his highest appointees, or Dubya's absences when he was supposed to be a member of the Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.

He hasn't caught up with Saddam Hussein, but he certainly isn't the man we need in charge of bringing down Saddam, when his best idea for doing it is to risk hundreds of thousands of troops and civilian lives in the process.

Well that makes it all clear now. This president {bush} has pulled out of a enviormental treaty that would have negitive impact on american buisness. Installed cabinet members that have {OMG} lost an election in the past. Attacked a country who was harboring terrorist camps that had and where planning more attacks against the US {after giving them plenty of warning to close down the camps and give up the terrorist. Made a commitment not to sit back and let enemys of the US Plot it's destruction with impunity. Oh and lets not forget had prior buisness with some of his political appointments {as all presidents who proceeded him and is not illegal}

Yep he is right behind good ole Saddam. who has for the record. Used chemical weapons on fellow Iraqi's {wiping out entire villages of men women and children} - Invaded a nieboring country and had his military rape ,loot and pilage the country side. - Ruled his country with an iron fist killing and torturing anyone who did not agree with him. - Rose to power by way of terror and murdering his opposition. - Paid the familys of terrorist. - And the coup da grace sporting a big ugly mustache.

Re: America. I think something that a lot of anti-Americans like to forget is that the USA is not a dictatorship that rules the world but a flawed Republic with leaders as corrupt as that of any other country that has enormous economic wealth and a very strong military and uses both to help it's friends and attack it's enemies throughout the world.

It's not that America is all good or all bad, just that it's like any Great Power that came before it. It gets where it is spouting good intentions, makes a great deal of mistakes, irritates the world with it's arrogance and (sometimes) learns humility.

Much of what Della said about Bush is true. Americans seem to be romanticising him as a great war leader. The thing is, Bush's only war-leader capability is that he is willing to use force. Apart from his obvious lack of military experience (it's worth remembering that Bush was not elected as a warrior but as an isolationist who was going to reduce America's military presence in the world - ironically many liberals were angry at this citing America's "responsibilities") he is also ignorant of the Middle East and how to deal with it. Bush comes from a school of thinking that believes the enemy can always be crushed with superior force. As Russia has learning in Chechnya, this is a false belief.

"Used chemical weapons on fellow Iraqi's {wiping out entire villages of men women and children} - Invaded a nieboring country "

Just for the record, Starbirth, before Britain re-drew the maps of the Middle-East, Kuwait was part of Iraq, the only part in fact that wasn't land-locked. The British stole the land, called it Kuwait and installed a monarchy - effectively cutting off Iraq from the outside world. If it wanted to do business, it had to go through its neighbours. So in one sense it didn't invade its naighbour, it was attempting to reclaim territory that once belonged to it. This is what sparked the world's ire in the 90's. If however you are called Israel and have a large support base in the US, it is nothing less than your god given right to invade your neighbour.

Also, this 'killing his own people' thing. Yes, he has assasinated rivals (but George says this is OK now), but as far as chemical/biological attacks go, the people he has attacked have been ethnically quite different. This does not excuse his behaviour, but let's have a little accuracy. Oh, and let's remind ourselves that when he did this the US and Britain were still doing business with him - it didn't change a thing.

To sum up - yes he is an unpleasent man who doesn't deserve to govern the lives of others, but you can remain accurate and non-emotional when describing his actions. If you have to distort the truth or lie to make him sound bad (which plenty of people do), that just you makes look under informed, or just a plain liar.
He's bad enough - you don't have to demonise him in an effort to make your own country look whiter than white.

Oh and by the way, this "America is great - anyone can be president" sentiment? Don't you think you aught to reconsider saying that as though it's a good thing?
The same applies to every country. You just have to be bent enough.

"So in one sense it didn't invade its naighbour, it was attempting to reclaim territory that once belonged to it."

So along with "who cares what happens over there?" selfish isolationism, and "them arabs can't do democracy" racism, we can now add Imperialism (you know, the *proper* sort where you annex a country, remove it's soverignty and install a governor) to the things supposed "Leftists" are willing to defend or propogate on this thread?

A serious question? Do you actually fundamentally believe in certain things or are your beliefs so flimsy you're willing to resort to Right-wing arguments and viewpoints to back up an anti-american stance?

Excactly Zagreb, america is the sum of it's whole. A nation of peoples and cultures. With that comes good and bad. We are not the worlds savors nor its devil. As a powerful economic force it is a given that we would have a presence in all parts of the world. However what I see many times is america is looked upon by some as the root of all their problems. Many nations want american investment and /or aid but then are unhappy about american presence or america protecting its investments. I believe the main reason Bush's foreign policy has been looked upon so favorably is that for the last 2 decades whenever american intrests have been attacked overseas there has been little response or even retreat. This 'paper tiger' policy of of backing away from confrontation only encouraged more aggresion. On 9/11 something changed in the national psyche. I think that many people wanted to hear that we will not let attacks on the US going unchallenged. It comes down to America is not perfect but could be a lot worse if it was a facist nation as some anti americans would like to promote. It is acting no differently then any other democratic nation on earth would if they were in its place. After all america is made up of the world . For good or bad {we are you}

"So along with "who cares what happens over there?" selfish isolationism, and "them arabs can't do democracy" racism, we can now add Imperialism (you know, the *proper* sort where you annex a country, remove it's soverignty and install a governor) to the things supposed "Leftists" are willing to defend or propogate on this thread?"

Erm, Zagreb, what the hell are you on about? No-one suggested anything about annexing anyone other than the fact that Iraq was annexed by the British when it created Kuwait.

"who cares what happens over there?" Me. I want to see as few people die as possible in this oil-grab.

"them arabs can't do democracy" I'm sure they can. I've never argued that they can't.

I'm not a "Leftist", not really sure what it means, or in fact if it's a proper word.

"A serious question? Do you actually fundamentally believe in certain things or are your beliefs so flimsy you're willing to resort to Right-wing arguments and viewpoints to back up an anti-american stance?"

A serious answer. I fundamentaly believe in the rights of people not to get bombed and murdered in their beds for any reason, be it political idealism or a result of a long running "oil war". My beliefs are far from flimsy. On the contary, it is you that have wavered from a war to a no-war stance throughout this thread.
And for the record, once again, I am not anti-American. I am anti greed and anti murder. The current American president is displaying both attributes in abundance. It is an abuse of power.

I wasn't meaning you *specifically*. I was referring to other people. The "who gives a damn about over there" was from Uber Red (Uber Blue more like). Can't remember who was responsible for "arabs can't do democracy" but it's not far back in the thread.

Iraq's invasion and annexation of Kuwait was the Imperialism I reffered to, funnily enough. And it *was* an act of Imperialism.


"I fundamentaly believe in the rights of people not to get bombed and murdered in their beds for any reason, be it political idealism or a result of a long running "oil war". My beliefs are far from flimsy. On the contary, it is you that have wavered from a war to a no-war stance throughout this thread."

I fundamentally believe that if you have the choice between thousands dead (war) or hundreds of thousands dead (sanctions) you take the lesser of two evils and stop pretending that "I'd do neither" is an option (since it entails choosing to leave things as they are ie. sanctions). My only "wavering" came about through wondering if war is the only way to unseat Saddam (the whole point of this). I have never wavered from my opinion that Saddam should and can only be removed by some sort of action.

starbirth,

Drop Saddam's record for a moment. I have not been trying to make Bush seem worse or nearly as bad as Saddam. You were originally accusing Della of claiming that, but I haven't claimed that, so I don't need to defend it. Yes, it makes Bush look good to keep comparing his record to Saddam, which is not a very high level of achievement. Drop Saddam for a moment and let's talk about Bush.

Bush "pulled out of a environmental treaty that would have negitive impact on American buisness."

That's only one of the treaties Bush has broken or said that he will break. When I said that Bush has been "ignoring commitments to treaties," I meant that to include Kyoto, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and maybe I'm going too far when I think of the UN Charter and Geneva Conventions as "treaties." I should have said that Bush has been ignoring treaties and international agreements. The Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive strikes is at face-value clearly outside the scope of the UN Charter. I don't see how anyone could claim that the UN Charter is a good thing and that the Bush Doctrine is a good thing. They are irreconcilable. And the treatment of POW's from Afghanistan, classifying them as "enemy combatants" in order to avoid honoring the Geneva Convention, is a sham that most people can see through.

While we're at it, there was a US citizen, the "dirty bomber," who has been denied his usual rights under the Constitution. They've detained him in the same way that they detain "enemy combatants," showing that the Bush administration will not only break international agreements but our own constitution.

The Kyoto agreement is really the least of my concerns, because pundits have said that Congress would have rejected it anyway. But it is one of the many treaties and international agreements that Bush has begun to ignore or stated that he will ignore.

Bush "installed cabinet members that have {OMG} lost an election in the past."

You're right. No crime there, just an obvious way of proving that he doesn't value the opinion of his people.

Bush "attacked a country who was harboring terrorist camps that had and where planning more attacks against the US {after giving them plenty of warning to close down the camps and give up the terrorist."

Taliban didn't exactly have all the members of al-Qaeda in custody. I think there are a lot of unanswered questions about how strong the link was between Taliban and al-Qaeda, or how much control Taliban could have exerted over al-Qaeda even if they had wanted to.

There have been al-Qaeda cells in Germany and Italy and other places. What if we treated those countries the same way? The US demands: turn over all the al-Qaeda members who reside in Germany, or we begin bombing military targets in Germany. Germany replies, "We'll turn over the ones that we can find, but there are others that we can't locate." US pronounces that Germany has failed to turn over all the terrorists, begins bombing, installs a new regime, everyone lives happily ever after. Then we move on to Italy and do the same. In their history books, the victors can write that the US merely "attacked a country [Germany] who was harboring terrorist camps that had and were planning more attacks against the US {after giving [Germany] plenty of warning to close down the camps and give up the terrorists)."

Even if your accusation were partially true--that the Taliban actively protected terrorists--and even if we had the authority to make these kinds of demands on another nation (which we don't), the Taliban made blindingly obvious moves to negotiate, and Bush ignored them. He chose war before making any substantial attempt to solve the problem diplomatically.

Bush "had prior buisness with some of his political appointments {as all presidents who proceeded him and is not illegal}"

I didn't say they were making shady business dealings *with each other*. They managed to have shady business dealings on their own, without any help from each other. Bush was under investigation several years ago, while his father was president, and the investigation was dropped. Bush's Sec. of the Army Thomas White was vice-chairman of Enron Energy Services from 1998-2001. Witnesses say White knew about the billions of dollars of fraud going on in his division. He even brought his conflict of interest into the Pentagon, failing to sell off his Enron stock options until after he was supposed to. Cheney has been accused (and a lawsuit brought against him while he's been in office) of misleading accounting practices during his time as CEO of Halliburton. These are only some of the highest players. There are others appointed by Bush who have been investigated or are being investigated for their illegal business practices.

"W's Biggest Enron Liability: The Case Against Thomas White Grows"
from The Nation, 03/29/2002
http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=41

Saddam is evil. No argument here.

Bush and many of his appointees are corrupt. Comparing their actions with Saddam's makes them seem mild by comparison, but it doesn't change the fact that they're corrupt.

Hi Zagreb,

"(it's worth remembering that Bush was not elected as a warrior but as an isolationist who was going to reduce America's military presence in the world - ironically many liberals were angry at this citing America's "responsibilities")"

Do you remember any liberals specifically who expressed their anger at Bush's isolationism? An article or book or link that you could give to back up this claim? Although I wasn't glad to hear that Bush was Selected for the Presidency, I had hoped that we might have fewer military expeditions than Clinton had. Not because we shouldn't care about foreign wars, but because the US has demonstrated its incompetence, hypocrisy and selfish intentions in most of its foreign military excursions.

"I think something that a lot of anti-Americans like to forget is that the USA is not a dictatorship that rules the world but a flawed Republic with leaders as corrupt as that of any other country that has enormous economic wealth and a very strong military and uses both to help it's friends and attack it's enemies throughout the world."

"It's not that America is all good or all bad, just that it's like any Great Power that came before it. It gets where it is spouting good intentions, makes a great deal of mistakes, irritates the world with it's arrogance and (sometimes) learns humility."

You say this like it's something we should tolerate? A lot of anti-capitalists would agree with what you've said, only they would make the connection that a system designed to generate "enormous economic wealth" is the *cause* of corruption, absurd military growth and imperialist aggression.

Can you give an example of when the US seems to have "learned humility?"

"Do you remember any liberals specifically who expressed their anger at Bush's isolationism?"

I remember it was criticised in The Guardian (British liberal newspaper) for ignoring America's "responsibilities" around the world. I thought it was pretty rich considering the same newspaper was always attacking US adventurism.

I welcomed the return of US isolationism, since I regarded it as a good opportunity for other powerful countries to stop taking a "leave it to America" attitude and get involved in the world's trouble spots. September 2001 changed all that, of course.

As for my comments about "like any other great power" regarding the USA. My point was not that it should be tolerated, just that we should stop talking about it as if it's something new and unprecedented or as though America is any worse than some of the other great powers that preceded it. In the age of the UN and concern for international law, America is more restrained (or constrained?) than any superpower before it. If it really were the invincible behemoth people make it out to be, Iraq would already be conquered and formally annexed as an American colony. Things just aren't that simple any more.

America's wealth does not cause it's corruption. Any country has that (and the third world more so than the richer first). America's current aggression is more to do with making itself feel safe than obtaining more wealth.

If any one who's intersted in this is in the UK at the moment then they should watch the program on Channel 4 at the mometn . it's about the experiences of people who have been on the recieveing end of Amercia's wars in the names of hte good guys.

"Can you give an example of when the US seems to have "learned humility?""

Vietnam, without a shadow of a doubt.

Subcom - "Do you remember any liberals specifically who expressed their anger at Bush's isolationism? An article or book or link that you could give to back up this claim?"

I've lost count of the number of times I've challenged someone who's made the claim. Zagreb is the first pseudo american I've seen to make the claim. No one has ever 'backed up' their claim.

------------

"Vietnam, without a shadow of a doubt." Have you been blind to hollywood for 20 years?

------------

Something promising about the inspection team. They have qualified people (pro war people avert your eyes, I know how much you hate you beliefs challenged )

" Dr Blix also mentioned the work for the inspection programme of Don McIver, former Army chief and head of the Security Intelligence Service."

from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?thesection=news&thesubsection=&storyID=3047156&reportID=562588

>Saddam is evil. No argument here.

Bush and many of his appointees are corrupt. Comparing their actions with Saddam's makes them seem mild by comparison, but it doesn't change the fact that they're corrupt. <

Then we have nothing to argue about. I have never said that bush is an angel I just could not see how some people on this thread compared him to a murderous phychopath and even elevated him to the same level as Saddam Hussien. I think you would be hard pressed to find one politicion that has not done some stupid things, abuse of power or financil irregularities a some point in thier career in any country. However that is a far cry from what Mr. Hussien has accomplished.