Why Vaul should dislike the Bush Administration

[Rave]

Following on from this thread:

http://forums.hexus.net/showthread.php?t=33535

...here are some reasons why Vaul (and anyone else for that matter) should dislike the Bush Administration.

From here:

[Depends what you mean - if you mean there is room at school for the Nativity and singing Hymns, then I agree, there is also room for religious education. If you mean the Bible and creationist viewpoint should be taught as fact, then that would be something I could never agree with.

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache...ducation&hl=en

<sorry had to link to a Google cache page, the CNN page is no longer there>

Hmm. Well, how abaout pouring $130m into abstinence only sex education? That's pretty much entirely promoted by religious groups, and it's pretty much hopelessly ineffective. See also the comments on the 'faith-based' initiative. If you're in favour of the separation of church and state, which I assume from your comments on education that you are, you should be very much against that policy.

Now see this thread where you make great play of being working class- as you frequently do in other threads. Well, the Bush administration has stood by while hundreds of thousands if not millions of ordinary hard working blue-collar Americans have had their pensions stolen or squandered by the corporations they worked for and were encouraged to trust (I suggest reading the second link, followed by the third).

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...s-scandals.htm
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/co...esponsibility/
http://www.cpa.org.au/garchve5/1100bush.html

That's quite aside from the fact that the administration rips off the majority of Americans by arbitrarily giving out enormously lucrative 'reconstruction projects' in Iraq and Afghanistan to companies run by Republican cronies with minimal efforts to conduct a competitive tendering process. I'll leave issuse of how the war was justified, started and conducted, and issues of 'homeland security' for now; they'll require at least a whole seperate post each.

Then there's the fact that the supreme court now reckons that failing to identify yourself to a policeman is a legitimate arrestable offense.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2097516/

Is that a Bush Administration failing? Well yes actually, because the prime mover in favour of the ruling was Bush appointee Antonin Scalia.

More when I get round to it.

Rich :¬)

[Stewart]

Ah, but that's mostly domestic policy, and nowhere near as simple as you painted it, which is pretty much - Bush is evil and takes sweets from babies and kills kittens.

I say again - if this were obviously the case, then perhaps Kerry would have won? Didn't, did he? Millions upon millions of Americans voted for Bush, voted for his government, voted for him to stay.

I was simply pointing out to someone in that thread, that we are not all brainwashed into believing the standard Liberal nonsense that the big, bad Americans are our enemy.

You do get a special brand of religious nutter in America, I grant you.

Anyway mate, Kerry tried to rubbish the Bush government, spent a lot more time doing so than you as well, and guess what? Bush won.

Now, why do you think that was?

[Rave]

Ah, but that's mostly domestic policy, and nowhere near as simple as you painted it, which is pretty much - Bush is evil and takes sweets from babies and kills kittens.

Ah, the old 'belittle your opponent's argument by misrepresenting it' trick. Good one. If you can paint it a different way, then please do. Should I care that the Bush administration is mistreating a large proportion of a population of 300-odd million people? I suppose the plight of, say, the Sudanese is a more pressing concern, but that hardly means that we as citizens of the world should not criticise American domestic policy. After all, since WMDs miraculously failed to turn up, it's now Saddam's domestic policies that are being used to justify the war on Iraq. Fair's fair.

Anyway mate, Kerry tried to rubbish the Bush government, spent a lot more time doing so than you as well, and guess what? Bush won.

Now, why do you think that was?

Well, perhap's it's because Bush and the Republicans spent a lot more money rubbishing Kerry? The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, for example- all proven to have been made up, and all very obviously funded and promoted by people with a Pro-Bush agenda. Kerry's huge mistake was to try and fight Bush on his own terms.

Slightly more than 50% of American voters opted for Bush. So? At one point, 70% of Americans believed that Saddam was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Never kid yourself that Americans in general are well informed.

Rich :¬)

[Stewart]

Ah, the old 'belittle your opponent's argument by misrepresenting it' trick. Good one. If you can paint it a different way, then please do.

To be fair mate, I think I did your argument a favor, it was little more than - Bush sux!1!!11!

I mean, you threw a few links in to give the impression of balance, but the overly simplistic 'Bush is an evil!!111' stuff didn't do you any favors.

Well, perhap's it's because Bush and the Republicans spent a lot more money rubbishing Kerry?

Ah, the old 'if you lose, take it like a spoilt child and claim that the other side didn't play fair' trick. Good one.

If you think that Bush won the election simply because he 'spent more money rubbishing Kerry', then your ‘Bush sux’ argument suddenly seems sophisticated.

I mean, I know you lefty types have perfected over the years, the tactic of avoiding debate via accusations, like the way the average Guardian reader avoids debate on immigration by shouting 'racist' and hoping its enough to shut the other person up; but its sad, it really is, to see you lurch for this tired, poor tactic so quickly.

So - 'Yes Rave, Bush won just because he spent more rubbishing Kerry.'

There. Now you've achieved the desired effect.

Slightly more than 50% of American voters opted for Bush. So?

So he won the election. Do you see?

[FarmerJon]

Actually if you watched any of the absolutely ridiculous and frankly nearly slanderous adverts which were sponsored by Bush during the campaign i doubt you'd be quite so willing to laugh at the idea. Bush, despite himself going MIA & avoiding his military service actually spent hundreds of thousands of dollars backing campaigns which effectively made up stories about Kerry's own military service. The sheer quantity of money behind the Bush campaign (oddly eonugh from oil companies which for some reason like Bush...hmm how's the Kyoto withdrawal affected this i wonder??) makes the money spent by Kerry almost vanish into insignificance. There were times during the run up to the election where Bush was getting 10 times the publicity and exposure on TV that Kerry was...wonder why?

[Chunky]

what about the claims that bush rigged the election, cant for the life of me remember how he was supposed to have done it...was it something to do with college votes.....

oh well, i just say that bush needs to be taken out, replaced with someone who wont start wars for fake weaponry
albeit that saddy was prolly hiding something nasty

Chunky

[Rave]

So he won the election. Do you see?

I do see that, yes. So what? Does that somehow make him immune from criticism?

Rather than just trying to prove to me the obvious fact that he won the election, perhaps you'd like to try and rebut some of the actual arguments I made?

Rich :¬)

[Stewart]

Of course there is some truth in them, Bush, like all people in that position, will use any methods to get elected, but, honestly, are you saying you couldn't make a post about the Kerry camp, and the things they did that were slightly dodgy? Complete with links?

I see Bush as the lesser of two evils, not the perfect President of the US. Better him than the other bloke, that's my point of view.

[Rave]

Fair enough I suppose, although I disagree obviously. Merely being the lesser of two evils doesn't mean you shouldn't dislike him though.

To clarify, since it's the point you brought up in the other thread, I've never been against regime change in Iraq. I merely wish that that had been the stated aim from the start, rather than one applied retrospectively; I also wish that the war had been prosecuted a lot more sensibly than it was.

Rich :¬)

[Stewart]

We won the war, we lost the peace. Once Saddam was removed and the war over, a state of total cock-up took over. The Yanks were unprepared and unable to deal with the millitants and unable to bring around stability as quickly as was needed.

End of the day, if there had been no 9/11, then we wouldn't have gone into Afghanistan nor Iraq... well, not as quickly as we did, anyway. This war, being fought between the Yanks and Brits (all our other allies) and Islamic extremeists, started on 9/11.

The American high command is showing the world that if you strike at the heart of America, it strikes back. Yes, Saddam had nowt to do with 9/11, but once the 'war' was on, and Afghanistan invaded, it was always on the cards that Saddam would be removed.

Iran next? Syria?

Who knows.

[malfunction]

We won the war, we lost the peace. Once Saddam was removed and the war over, a state of total cock-up took over. The Yanks were unprepared and unable to deal with the millitants and unable to bring around stability as quickly as was needed.

End of the day, if there had been no 9/11, then we wouldn't have gone into Afghanistan nor Iraq... well, not as quickly as we did, anyway. This war, being fought between the Yanks and Brits (all our other allies) and Islamic extremeists, started on 9/11.

The American high command is showing the world that if you strike at the heart of America, it strikes back. Yes, Saddam had nowt to do with 9/11, but once the 'war' was on, and Afghanistan invaded, it was always on the cards that Saddam would be removed.

Iran next? Syria?

Who knows.

I have to ask - the way that's worded - you seem to think it's a good thing?!?

[Stewart]

I'm saying it’s the way it is. Did you think for a second, once America, the world's biggest Super Power, had its heart ripped out, that there wasn't going to be the mother of all retaliations?

As for it being or not being a good thing - Saddam has gone, that's a good thing. The Taliban have gone, that's also a good thing. Democracy will now come to those 2 places quicker than it ever would have done under the old regimes, which is never, under Saddam and the Taliban as we know.

The American's are out for revenge. Did you see Bush standing in the wreckage of the World Trade Center, addressing the crowds? "I hear you, America hears you, and the people who knocked these buildings down are going to hear you."

No big surprise then, that America started flexing its muscle - and it was non-negotiable as well – UN doesn’t back us? We’re going in anyway. Germany and France disagree? We’re going in anyway.

They don't give a monkies about Germany, France or anyone else. They have the special relationship with us, this stops them from being completely isolated on the world stage, and gives them a powerful and trusted allie. A few other minor countires throw their lot in, and the American's are simply the spearhead - the muscle who put into practise what everyone else is thinking. In the minds of the average flag-hanging-out-the-window Yank, anyway.

America is not going to sit there waiting for the next attack, they are going to topple regimes considered to be a threat, or those who allow terrorists to operate freely, like dominoes. When the world’s biggest super power, the world’s richest country and the world’s best armed and most mobile armed forces feel threatened, you can expect nothing else.

I just wonder how many places are on the list.

[malfunction]

I'm saying it’s the way it is. Did you think for a second, once America, the world's biggest Super Power, had its heart ripped out, that there wasn't going to be the mother of all retaliations?

As for it being or not being a good thing - Saddam has gone, that's a good thing. The Taliban have gone, that's also a good thing. Democracy will now come to those 2 places quicker than if ever would have done under the old regimes, which is never, under Saddam and the Taliban as we know.

The American's are out for revenge. Did you see Bush standing in the wreckage of the World Trade Center, addressing the crowds? "I hear you, America hears you, and the people who knocked these buildings down are going to hear you."

No big surprise then, that America started flexing its muscle - and it was non-negotiable as well – UN doesn’t back us? We’re going in anyway. Germany and France disagree? We’re going in anyway.

America is not going to sit there waiting for the next attack, they are going to topple regimes considered to be a threat, or those who allow terrorists to operate freely, like dominoes. When the world’s biggest super power, the world’s richest country and the world’s best armed and most mobile armed forces feel threatened, you can expect nothing else.

I just wonder how many places are on the list.

Right - my 2p:

1) America had it's heart ripped out? It was one terrorist act. A bloody big one yes - but that's all it was - especially put into context by the earthquake this week. I can accept the war in Afghanistan as a direct consequence to the 9/11 attack but Iraq? IMO Iraq was about oil and nothing else. And why do you seem to take delight in the fact that there are probably other places 'on the list'?

2) Regime change is in all likelyhood a million times better for both Afghanistan and Iraq - I do believe the end has justified the means as in both cases I do not believe any diplomatic measures would have helped - not in our lifetimes at least.

3) The current political FUD campaign is the worst thing to come out of all of this for us in the west - the outright lies... They ought to have you worried. Yes we've always known that politicians are full of it and will say / do anything to get / maintain power but this takes it to the next level and it ought to worry you that Bush is still in power in the US - and Blair here... Though for my 2p Blair is less of a worry - as I reckon the tories and anyone else would have acted the same - and we as a nation alone are very unlikely to go out and start a war with anyone... whereas the sad fact of the matter is that the US can and will do pretty much whatever it wants unless Russian / China REALLY make a fuss about it. But just because that's the way it is it doesn't mean that there's nothing wrong with it or that you should be glad that it's happening.

[alexander]

I hate all these Bush haters. He's a decent man who does what he think is best. Atleast he acts on what he thinks and I bet if Kerry had got elected he would not go to war with any country because of what he saw happened to Bush. We will need to go into North Korea soon...

[malfunction]

I hate all these Bush haters. He's a decent man who does what he think is best. Atleast he acts on what he thinks and I bet if Kerry had got elected he would not go to war with any country because of what he saw happened to Bush.

I like Bush because I think Kerry would have been worse....? And as for anyone that high up being a decent man... It doesn't even come into it IMHO.

We will need to go into North Korea soon...

Erm... WHY?

[Stewart]

Right - my 2p:

1) America had it's heart ripped out? It was one terrorist act. A bloody big one yes - but that's all it was - especially put into context by the earthquake this week. I can accept the war in Afghanistan as a direct consequence to the 9/11 attack but Iraq? IMO Iraq was about oil and nothing else. And why do you seem to take delight in the fact that there are probably other places 'on the list'?

As I said, I don't take delight in it, I'm saying it is the case. 9/11 gave America a free licence to do as pleases to protect itself - as the American public see it. So bye bye Taliban, bye bye Saddam, and you have to assume, it doesn't end there.

No delight, no joy, but probably a fact.

The Earthquake this week is completely different, the loss of life is greater, but its a natural disater, not people hijacking planes and flying them into buildings, slaughtering people by the thousand at their place of work. 9/11 changed the world - the recent disaster did not.

2) Regime change is in all likelyhood a million times better for both Afghanistan and Iraq - I do believe the end has justified the means as in both cases I do not believe any diplomatic measures would have helped - not in our lifetimes at least.

Agreed.

3) The current political FUD campaign is the worst thing to come out of all of this for us in the west - the outright lies... They ought to have you worried. Yes we've always known that politicians are full of it and will say / do anything to get / maintain power but this takes it to the next level and it ought to worry you that Bush is still in power in the US - and Blair here... Though for my 2p Blair is less of a worry - as I reckon the tories and anyone else would have acted the same - and we as a nation alone are very unlikely to go out and start a war with anyone... whereas the sad fact of the matter is that the US can and will do pretty much whatever it wants unless Russian / China REALLY make a fuss about it. But just because that's the way it is it doesn't mean that there's nothing wrong with it or that you should be glad that it's happening.

Russia and China can make a fuss, and that still wouldn't stop the Yanks. Obviously they are not going to go to war with them, nor risk a nuclear exchange, but before, diplomacy was the key - the Yanks wanted the other nuclear powers on side as much as pos, obvious this mostly means China and Russia. But post 9/11, its a different America, an America that doesn't ask before it acts, basically an America that is the current #1 force in the world and is now showing that it is.

Now the Americans are going to be less bothered about walking on egg shells where the Russians and Chinese are concerned, as they consider themselves at war. So unless its a direct confrontation with a nuclear power, I doubt they'd stop at anything else.

Did they stop when the UN wouldn't Ok the military action? No.

Did they stop when Germany and France, two of the three big European powers made it clear they did not and would not support them? No.

When Russia wasn't onside either? No.

When China didn't support the war? No.

What 9/11 gave the world was a new USA, a USA that is going to be into everything, making it the way they want, no matter who gets in the way, and who's nose has to be put out of joint. You have to assume, therefore, that Afghanistan and Iraq is not the sum total of American military action that is going to result.