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

<>
No doubt that's true - but most of what the rest of the world *sees* is the Bush cabal, sadly...

I'm bookmarking again, just simply because it's at the top of the page.

Un

I am not american and i shall first say that i am amazed by your culture.

I am from europe, and when i visited U.S., i was fascinated by pratical mind U.S. citizens have, i was always treated well, i walked in N.Y. more safely than in more of many streets here in my city (and we are only 1 million), in every place i went i was capable of speaking with the staff in more than one language ( that is quite hard in europe), and many other great things.

But i was amazed as well by the kind of indiference of U.S. polititions have. I amazed how could millions of people let their polititians be mainly people of status and people with great money power and greed.

So i think non-U.S. people are not angry with U.S. general citizens, but yes, with the greed and careless of U.S. polititians, and by the way how easy the U.S. citizens let being lead by greedy and arrogant policies.

Kandarian

"I thought we were in Iraq to steal oil, not impose morality. THis is totally new to me. I'm just asking for proof of it."

I CAN understand why you're confused, Dave. Conflicting messages from world leaders + a mind like yours = a recipe for confusion.

In fact America IS in Iraq for the purpose of stealing oil. However Bush, Bliar et al would like you to believe that regime change is the true purpose. That's because they believe it's the only way they can vindicate their actions. (They don't seem to realise that it doesn't vindicate anything).

You might have noticed that since all the other pretexts have been exposed for the lies they are, the last desperate justification is now words to the effect of "see how we've liberated the poor oppressed people of Iraq" and "see how Iraq is a better place without Saddam". (As if that was ever the purpose of the invasion).

What is that if it's not imposing American-style morality at gunpoint?

OK Empty Im convinced, not by you ofcourse I knew this all along (check the b/log), but my question for you is how does slinging insults at US citizens help the situation?

one love

no, no no empty. YOU claimed the US is imposing morality at gunpoint. YOU said that was what we were actually doing. This isn't about political spin or statements, this is about what YOU just claimed.

So YOU need to make up YOUR mind. Are we stealing oil or imposing morality? Or is it both?

Also, I'll ask again. Where's the proof we're imposing morality?

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

Z - probably b/c of the high ratio of constituents to representatives, politicians in the US need to spend lots of $$$ to become well known enough to win election...this of course selects for rich people. A bad problem, to be sure...

dave

Hi Kandarian nice to meet you what corner of europe do you hail from then?

"how does slinging insults at US citizens help the situation?"

It doesn't That why I don't do that. I tell only the truth. In the hope that the truth might shake them from their complacency and apathy.

Sadly most Americans have yet to demonstrate that the truth matters to them.

"I'll ask again. Where's the proof we're imposing morality?"

Dave, it's in every one of George W Bush's speeches of the last six months.

Should I believe Dubya or not? (He is the president of the United States, surely he wouldn't lie).

Before you answer that, consider that if Bush is telling the truth then you're imposing morality at gunpoint. If he's lying then Dave is admitting that for the first time and we're making progress.

See empty, that's the problem. If you've read any of my posts about Dubya, you'd realize that I definetely think he has lied. In fact, on the Iraq thread I just gave an explicit example about his most recent budgetary lies.

But if I don't like Dubya, but I'm still happy to be american, then I don't fit into your nice little notion of what an american is, do I? You would have to seriously re-consider your fundamental hatreds. That would take too much work, so instead you just lump us all together, slap your hands together, and call it a day.

I don't think Dubya ever said "we're imposing morality at gunpoint". I don't think he ever used morality - he may have said we removed an immoral regime, but he never said we're imposing morality. Maybe the rule of law, maybe democracy...but that's a different beast all together.

dave

"But if I don't like Dubya, but I'm still happy to be american, then I don't fit into your nice little notion of what an american is, do I?"

Not true at all. I have often acknowledged that there are Americans who claim not to support Dubya. I've also said (and I still believe this) that they are perhaps the most hypocritical of all. Because this enelected president URGENTLY NEEDS to be impeached and face criminal charges. Yet these supposed non-supporters of Dubya do him a great favour by refusing to admit there's anything wrong that this year's election wont fix.

"I don't think Dubya ever said "we're imposing morality at gunpoint"."

Dave, if you wonder why people cast aspersions on your comprehension skills, wonder no longer. Read this carefully, now. I have never said that Dubya used the phrase "we're imposing morality at gunpoint". I said that he has been claiming for some time that the purpose if the invasion of Iraq was regime change. I then said:

"What is that if it's not imposing morality at gunpoint?"

Here's a question for you, Dave:

Do you accept that Bush and Blair are lying about regime change being the purpose of the invasion of Iraq?

Actually, I agree with ES. Bush is attempting to force Christian morality onto Iraq.

But then, he's attempting to force Christian morality onto his own country.

So how much of an argument is that?

That's an excellent point, Saturnine. But the difference is, he is appointed leader of his own country. But no-one has ever given him the right to impose anything on any other country.

FLOG FLOG.

I accept the fact that Bush is lying; no doubt in my mind. His first treasury secretary recently came forward and said that in the 1st 100 days of the Bush admin he was looking for ways to invade Iraq. This was of course before 9/11, before terrorism was a household word. Of course Bush is a lying piece of ...
He was lying during his 2000 campaign - this was born out rapidly by his actions as president. He'll lie about anything. Their strategy is "mobilize the base, confuse the middle". The extremist actions mobilize the base, the lies confuse the middle. The strategy doesn't work without the lies.

Blair, I don't know. I just honestly don't know enough, haven't read or heard enough to make a guess.

dave

A most intelligent and erudite contribution as usual, Blickybadger.

OK, you accept that Bush is lying.

What, then, do you believe is the real reason behind the invasion of Iraq?

Ah, but ES, he may be appointed leader of the US, but he's banned by constitution from melding together the state and the church. So he's not entitled to impose his religious morality on anything, or anyone.