Why Vaul should dislike the Bush Administration

[malfunction]

Vaul - on point 3 - all I really want you to think about are the governments in the west - the "free world" - outright lying about things - things as big as reasons for going to war - being 'caught out' about those reasons and still maintaining that they are true... About twisting situations to provide support for more and more right wing measures. These are things that should worry you IMO. As should the US taking no notice of the UN.

Other than that we might as well just agree to disagree... I know an earthquake is a very different thing to a terroist attack in terms of intent but TBH I would class it as the same kind of thing - it's a tragic thing but a rare occurence - a 'one off' of sorts - and I don't think 'the war on terror' is by any means the answer - or the thing to do just because most of America think so... I found it very odd in the run up to the election that people across america were potrayed as being worried about 'homeland security'... Maybe I'm the idiot but I've never worried about being involved in an IRA attack... Though on the same note I'm sure everyone that voted for Bush did not do so simply because of the 'terror' issue.

[Romanov]

As should the US taking no notice of the UN.
.

Heh The United States IS the UN, havn't you noticed that in all instances where the UN decides action theres 20,000 US troops and about 130 commonwealth soldiers? Without the US the UN is absolutely nothing and they know it.

Why are people getitng so het up about whether their government lied or not, both the US and UK went to war for money - oil contracts/construction/services etc they are simply safeguarding their countries future, *ahem* your future if you like or hadn't you realised your in one of the worlds richest countries? why do you think we are still rich?

because we are nice peaceable people? a quiet nation full of genteel people? er come on pull the other one we all go about saying "ooooooh no to war" its horrible but no one seems to mind profiting from the wars that we carry out because that keeps us one of the richest countries in the world.

[Byatt]

As Rave has already said - the fact that he and his administration are slowly destroying the (wholly necessary) idea of state church separation in the US. Kerry's no Atheist (political climate in the Us couldn't allow this) but such swingeing reforms on policy just to appease the religious right wouldn't have come from his administration - whereas Bush now believes he has a "Mandate" for them. As for the election...twas the fundies what won it, eventually it'll be the fundy influence that lose it for the republicans, I think (that's pretty much how Clinton got in). But then this is "domestic policy", so I guess this doesn't count.

So, internationally, what has he actually done wrong? Well, yes, he's "freed" two sets of people from oppressive regimes, and replaced them with US friendly regimes which are never really likely to be allowed to become independent democracies, all in the name of the war on terror. If we're going to argue internationally, perhaps we should use his own criteria - have Dubya's actions abroad significantly reduced the chances of terrorists striking again at "western" targets?

Well I'm going to give myself a couple of axioms to work from as to this - the first is motivation, and the second is mobilisation. I'd say you need a motivated AND mobilised group of terrorists in order to commit terrorist actions. Mobilisation encompasses the various bits of anti-terror work that everyone from your common citizen to your U.S marine working in Falluja does.

So on the motivation front - to say that this has reduced due to America's actions abroad would be, I think, misrepresenting the truth. If anything America's unilateralist actions will have increased the volume of bad feeling toward the US, practically everywhere.

In terms of the mobilisation - this is the tricky one - do we really believe that we have achieved victories in the war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq? Are we prepared to accept that Al-qaeda suffered a serious loss in either country ?

I seriously do not believe that imprisoning various foreign nationals found in Afghanistan - yes, it was an Al-qaeda base, problem - if you believe the hype, Al-qaeda is a huge, decentralised operation, then attacking one base does not rid you of the problem, it merely tends to increase the activity of bases elsewhere, especially when the figurehead of the group (who also, handily, provides the funding) is still at large. I would oversimplify and say it's a bit like kicking a beehive, but someone will probably hit me with a pedantry hammer.

I also have trouble believing that the imprisonment of various resisting elements in Iraq (many of whom, I suspect, are those let out of prison by Saddam just previous to the invasion) has done little, if anything, to reduce the risk of another 11/9. The only connection I can find between international terrorism and Iraq is Dubya's fathers administration, who gave asisstance to both Osama AND Saddam.

America has shown, once again, that it's foreign policy is entirely self serving (there really is no altruism involved at all, Rave will surely list the numerous countries under [possibly more easily removable] dictatorships the US still supports, should you request it)- contracts in both Afghanistan and Iraq should "pay" for each war in their own time, although I feel sorry for anyone who lost their life (on either side) for what I see has basically been a US overseas investment protection mission made under the pretext of a war on terror.

Quite how disenfranchising the major nations of the world from it's anti-Terror cause (albeit by threatening their own self-serving foreign policy, in the case of France) by ignoring their protestations regarding both invasions, and their general conduct towards opponents ("lol freedom fries lol") is supposed to help unite the world against "the terrorists" is also beyond the scope of my (somewhat meagre) imagination. So, really, a bit like kicking a beehive, then telling the majority of people with beekeeping equipment to shove it up their arse.

[myth]

I am American, and I am prod of it! And I'm sick of all these American debate threads... We are who we are, yes we are great, and yes bush likes to go to war... Since 9/11 our countrie has had a hard time with the stock market and our economy has suffered.... And yes bush is spending more of are money in Iraq... But lets face it, our ways may not seem right to yous and the rest of the world but never the less we are the worlds super power! And if we must go to war every now and then to boost are economy then so be it! (joking) To be honest I don't care about Bush, or Iraq, or even the UK! All I care about is being free to do as I please... We are truly the land of the free... More so then the rest of the world... And as long as Bush keeps this country safe I don't give a dam!

[Flibb]

And what are these freedoms you have that we dont have in the UK or the majority of the rest of Europe?

[G4Z]

Myth, right...

That is exactly the attitude that makes the rest of the world hate americans... I just cant be bothered to say more than that to you right now.

[myth]

Myth, right...

That is exactly the attitude that makes the rest of the world hate americans... I just cant be bothered to say more than that to you right now.

It's just the way were raisd... We are selfish, fat americans...

[Howard]

And you're proud of that?

[myth]

And you're proud of that?

Well, not so much the fact that were selfish... and I could lose a few ponds, However I am proud at what we achieved through out our history...

[malfunction]

Well, not so much the fact that were selfish... and I could lose a few ponds, However I am proud at what we achieved through out our history...

Which is what exactly?

EDIT: Off topic but 2nd thread in a week to remind me of Life of Brian...

All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

[RVF500]

Anyone here ever heard of NORAID?

If not let me throw a shard of light on it. It was an organisation that funded in large part the IRA in it's operations for around 30 years here on the UK mainland, Northern Ireland and Europe. A significant number of people were murdered during that campaign. Where was NORAID based? The US. Why wasn't it shut down? Because successive US administrations didn't want to upset the 'Irish' vote. Funnily enough as soon as a major foriegn terrorist act is perpetrated on US territory ans Dubya declares his war on terror it's not quite cool to have a terrorist funding organisation operating out of Boston. Especially for operations carried out on its 'friends' territory. So it's shut down. Is this significant? Well very shortly afterwards Sinn Fien and the PIRA decided to adhere to the Good Friday agreement and begin to disarm. A huge part of their funding had just gone. Special relationship? Get real. One way deal more like.

While we are on the subject of state sponsored terrorism how about a few lines regarding Nicaragua for example? And don't anyone DARE come out with the 'if it wasn't for us you'd be speaking German now' as that will be historically shot down in flames and the fact that it was only by a narrow vote that the language of the US wasn't German.

[myth]

Which is what exactly?

Well lets see... we liberated our selves from the British, we were the first to make the atom bomb. Were leading the war on terror, we took down sadam... And who knows what we'll do next! The simple fact of the mater is were the Super power of this world and many arnt happy with that...

[Daymonkey]

ahh just like 'you' the americans won the world war myth......

[RVF500]

You're right myth, many aren't happy with it. Russia and China who are perennial enemies are holding joint military exercises for example. No one trusts the Americans in their self appointed role of world policeman.

As for liberating yourselves you need to look a bit more closely at your own history. Being in the pocket of the French, without whom you would have remained a colony, your nation invaded Canada at their behest. 1812. The subsequent conflict saw the American forces pushed back to New Orleans. Washington and Baltimore burned on the way. The battle at New Orleans was badly prosecuted by the British and they were beaten that time. This is widely touted as the reason for the end of that conflict whereas it was in fact the French who called the ceasefire. At that time as I understand it you hadn't robbed Texas from Mexico so New Orleans could be said to be as far as you could go before you ran out of territory to run to. So don't give me your well worn in your face crap about the war of independence. That was about some wealthy landowners realising that a country was there for the taking. Stuff your taxation without representation argument where most of you have your heads buried. And don't quote history to a nation that actually has a history.

We're supposed to be allies now so how about your people stop belittling others efforts and recognise that other people are making sacrifices as well. US foriegn economic policy has harmed our economy. Bush's steel reforms for example. Its very much a one way street and that's what upsets everyone not any of your national achievements. The way that every minor event is rammed down the throats of the rest of the world.

[Galant]

A few points to toss in for clarification purposes.

9/11 wasn't an isolated strike. Ever heard of the USS Cole? Look it up. The reason everyone thinks 9/11 was isolated is because their informational sources are limited. We too easily trust the media to gives us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Doesn't work that way though. Most people hadn't heard of Bin Laden before 9/11, that doesn't change the fact that he ahd been around for years. So too the Taleban and chums. The truth of strikes and threats and terrorists is bigger than the stories of which ever single media source you choose to listen to. These days we have the luxury of being better informed on world issues than ever before, but we shouldn't let ourselves be deceived into overestimating just how informed we are.

Regarding the whole Church/State thing, would someone please take a look at where that idea came from and what is actually set out to do and get back to me. Perhaps a quote from the Consititution. I honestly think most people will find themselves to be misinterpreting the whole thing.

Don't call the Americans stingy or totally self-serving. I grant you that they are to some extent self-serving - but so is every other nation, and so it will always be. The Americans give a lot and they do a lot for nations around the world. More than any other single nation I would guess. In money, aid, military support etc. Perhaps because they are the biggest that's their responsibility, but I was raised to believe that it is good and important to be appreciative and grateful, and not a whiner. You don't make demands and shout insults.

As for the UN, it's about time that someone got them to step up and correct the major issues within. Anyone come across the UN sex scandal yet? Absolutely disgusting, and makes me tired of hearing about their grand ideals and resolutions if they're not prepared to take ownership of their faults and then substantial action to correct them.

Myth sir, with all due respect, you should be more careful with your words because whether it matter to you what the world thinks or not you betray the image of your nation, which is largely made up of hard-working, generous men and women who want the best for themselves and others, and do not wish suffering on others.

[nichomach]

Galant, don't make unwarranted assumptions. The attack on the USS Cole was widely reported; I remember it well, and so do rather a lot of other people over here. We're also very well aware of the fact that the Taleban have been around for a long time; indeed some of us remember that the reason that militant Islam became so powerful in Afghanistan was because of the generous provisioning of Mujahideen fighters with US weapons and supplies .

As far as Church and State go, I would say that that would be "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". If one bases lawmaking and government practice upon a particular faith, it's a tenable position to state that one has, de facto if not in name, established a religion. In 1802, President Jefferson wrote a letter to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut, in which he declared that it was the purpose of the First Amendment to build ''a wall of separation between Church and State.''

The UN has problems, true; it would be amazing if it had not - but then after watching the parade of no-bid contracts handed to corporate associates of the Bush government, after seeing the CEO of Diebold stating that he was "looking forward to handing the State of Ohio" to the Republicans amongst other things then I'm aware that so does the US. You have a President who's so globally aware that he refused to believe that Sweden had an army and refused all contradiction; doesn't that worry you?