America & Bush: Unfair Criticism

Lifestay

It seems to me in recent years that America has been getting a lot of unfair criticism. People treat Bush and American policy in a way that is as contradictory as they claim American policy is. Personally, I really dislike Bush. I think he's an idiot. Personally, I think American foreign policy, let's say, has a few hole in it. It is clear to me however, that these flaws provide a platform for attacking America's policies on just about everything while seeming to refuse to acknowledge the other side of the argument.

I heard on the radio today that "a few thousand" Muslims worldwide would march in protest to the French law-to-be forbidding religious garments to be worn in school etc. This in my opinion is a violation of personal rights to religion (for Islam and Judaism) and is a pure example of where liberalism (trying to be completley free of state/church relations) leads to conservatism (becoming authortarian on things such as religious dress). However France is a democracy and the government of France has the backing of the French public in bringing this legislation in, however wrong it may be. A few thousand Muslims march.
Imagine if George Bush brought in this bill. Imagine the f*cking outrage at this, another horrendous act of the crazed Republican. I'd be quick to jump on the bandwagon of criticism but, on reflection, it would not be fair to criticise America and not criticise France. This is happening so often.

Everyone criticises the decision to invade Iraq. I myself, wrote an essay condemning it, dis-crediting the "Al-Qaeida" connection and showing that there are probably no WMD. But let's take the other side of it. A disgusting tryannical autocrat has been displaced. A disgusting character who inflicted genocide on his own people. America have taken out a leader who the people wanted out and who just about everyone in the world wanted out. In fairness the American case for war was false. But is that not excusable for what was a good deed? If Ireland suddenly became a State ruled by a bastard who killed millions from an ethnic group would you not leap in the air if America said they were taking him out, albeit because we were plotting to over-run England with manure by unleashing 100,000 cows on them. Now comes the truth that 6 major Al-Qaeida operatives were found living it up in a lush house in Baghdad. Although Bin Laden and Hussein are theoretical enemies, their aims are/were the same and, both being right-wing it is not hard to see Al-Qaeida and Hussein taking the "the enemy of our enemy is our friend". And Saddam had used chemical weapons in the past folks.

Bush has gone hard-line on just about everything after 9/11. Yes his attitude to Palestine is wrong but that does not mean he is not allowed to do anything else. The majority of historians accept that Jews have a right to Israel and contrary to popular belief, America have not done "nothing about Palestine". Palestine were offered an independent state under Clinton but guess who rejected it, not a plebiscite of the people but a judgement of the leader, Arafat. The deal seemed alright, if not biased to Israel, but he should have at least put it to a vote, should he not? Can you not blame America for being biased, although do not think for a second that I condone the Israeli military harrasment. It is American culture and history to protect itself. It's something cultural. After 3500 of its people were murdered in a terrorist attack do not reprimand them for trying to stop it again by attacking the attackers. George Bush is not the greatest threat to world peace at the moment. It is Arab/Muslim terrorists, people who do not interpret Islam as a peaceful religion. People who fly planes into buildings and let's be honest, would not hesitate to drop nuclear/chemical weapons on civilians. America used atomic weapons once, during the greatest war ever against what was an evil nation to save lives in the long run. Yes 80,000 Hiroshiams were killed but how many would have had to be killed to win the war in Japan, and how many Americans would have died too? And America will not used chemical weapons again. They've learned their lesson, and you cannot blame Bush for Vietnam.

When Bush visited England people marched against his arrival. They felt, fairly enough let it be said, that he was at least a half-illegitimate president who was waging war unfairly. How many people marched when the far worse President Putin came to England, after essentially being elected on racist claims against Kosovo. And while we're at it, when people criticise America for invading Iraq, how many congratulate them for taking out Milosevic, another inflictor of genocide?

We're all very quick to read Michael Moore and criticise the Florida elections and counts (or should that be non-counts) and dismiss Bush. Absoltuley. Something is very very dubious there. But how many people have read Greg Palast to see that very similar occurances happened in other states... but for Al Gore's benefit? Michael Moore is hilarious and makes excellent points. But do not take him as gospel as it is biased and left-wing and should be seen from that point of view. For every dose of left-wing-bias you should take some right-wing-bias to see if it is only propaganda. If you fall on the line of Moore, as I do, fair enough. At least you're educated enough not to go spouting one side of the argument, as is happening with America.

One last note. If history has taught us anything it's that the world is a dangerous place. If in the future a new fascism rises, or anything similar and Ireland is invaded, who would we turn to. America. America is far more likely to support a "good" country (democratic, fair to human rights etc) than a country who goes for pure Islamic militancy is. People are very very very quick to criticise Bush, much more so than the terrorist Bin Laden. Had Bin Laden attacked Liberty Hall, would you be so quick?

I'd like to hear your views. Please do not reply with "but bush rigged the election!" or "the weapons of mass destruction evidence was false" because i have dealt with these issues briefly and it is not an appraisal of American foreign policy. If you feel the criticism is fair then sure, let me know why. This is just a thought I've been wondering of late, I just feel America deserves a refreshed opinion.

Enda

voxpop

This may be a simplistic view on american foreign policy but it basically revolves around one theme

Do what we say, if you dont we dont care,we will just do it on our own anyway

Basically they move around the world poking their nose into anything they like and ignore the rest of the worlds opinion.
As for the war on terror, most of the terrorists they are fighting are american creations anyway - kinda ironic

dahamsta

Originally posted by Angry_Penguin
Do what we say, if you dont we dont care,we will just do it on our own anyway

That's not just an American thing, it happened everywhere in the runup to "war" in Iraq. Britain, Australia and even here, to name but a few. "Gov Knows Best" is catching.

adam

Ping Chow Chi

Everyone criticises the decision to invade Iraq. I myself, wrote an essay condemning it, dis-crediting the "Al-Qaeida" connection and showing that there are probably no WMD. But let's take the other side of it

but that was basicaly the whole reason that Blair gave for going to war. I remember him a month before the war started on newsnight saying let me make this clear - it is not about osting Saddam. If a leader lies about the reasons for going to war, then what can he be trusted with?

Now comes the truth that 6 major al-Qaeda operatives were found living it up in a lush house in Baghdad. Although Bin Laden and Hussein are theoretical enemies, their aims are/were the same and, both being right-wing it is not hard to see Al-Qaeida and Hussein taking the "the enemy of our enemy is our friend". And Saddam had used chemical weapons in the past folks.

I would like to see a link to this as I thought they hated one an other. Quite interesting if it is the truth. I have seached on BBC but there appears to be nothing that yet.

After 3500 of its people were murdered in a terrorist attack do not reprimand them for trying to stop it again by attacking the attackers

and no one (at least not many people) did complain when they attacked the taliban and al-Qaeda in Afganistan. Iraq was a completly different kettle of fish and even some US Army advisers has said that lumping the two seperate conflicts could be a mistake.

link

America dropped two A-Bombs on Japan - Hiroshima and Nagasaki

link

DadaKopf

Now comes the truth that 6 major Al-Qaeida operatives were found living it up in a lush house in Baghdad. Although Bin Laden and Hussein are theoretical enemies, their aims are/were the same and, both being right-wing it is not hard to see Al-Qaeida and Hussein taking the "the enemy of our enemy is our friend". And Saddam had used chemical weapons in the past folks.

This is an unlikely analysis.

First of all, there is no such organization as Al Q'aeda so any connection between this 'organization' and Saddam is dubitible. Secondly, at a very early stage, it was revealed that those suspected paramilitarists were availing of medical treatment (IIRC) and any connection between themselves and the Iraqi regime was unsubstantiated.

Thirdly, Saddam's and bin Laden's aims are not the same. To begin with, your attempt to cast them as left-wing or right-wing are definitions that don't really suit the Middle East (ME) context and you misintepret the complexity of ME relations - do you think the Syrian and Iraqi Ba'ath parties ever cooperated? Did they fakir! What do you mean by "right-wing"? Conservative? Islamic? Neoliberal? Authoritarian? These are Western labels.

Bin Laden's motives were (and possibly still are) to get the US military out of Saudi Arabia - this was his whole thing in his 1996 statement "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places". Saddam wanted to be a major international player, a ME power-broker, a Henry Kissinger of the Orient and he didn't really care who he got along with so long as he had control - until his bombastic show of weakness, invading Kuwait as an attempt to repay massive debts following the Iran-Iraq war, locked him into a fate of his own design. The two have different political ends. Saddam and bin Laden are not of the same Muslim sect; in fact, it's doubtful Saddam is remotely religious considering he is, ostensibly, a socialist atheist. I don't think that'd go down well with bin Laden.

Victor

Originally posted by Enda Hargaden
America & Bush: Unfair Criticism

Are you suggesting they aren't up to the job and they can't take the criticism of the various citizenries - "Boo hoo, he called me names"?

lili

Originally posted by Enda Hargaden

I heard on the radio today that "a few thousand" Muslims worldwide would march in protest to the French law-to-be forbidding religious garments to be worn in school etc. This in my opinion is a violation of personal rights to religion (for Islam and Judaism) and is a pure example of where liberalism (trying to be completley free of state/church relations) leads to conservatism (becoming authortarian on things such as religious dress). However France is a democracy and the government of France has the backing of the French public in bringing this legislation in, however wrong it may be. A few thousand Muslims march.
Imagine if George Bush brought in this bill. Imagine the f*cking outrage at this, another horrendous act of the crazed Republican. I'd be quick to jump on the bandwagon of criticism but, on reflection, it would not be fair to criticise America and not criticise France. This is happening so often.

Enda

as i'm french, i think i could give my opinion on the subject, it's not that simply, if you want i could tell you few things which will enlight you:)

mr_angry

There is no shortage of criticism aimed at Bush and the American government. But there is a reason for that. Similarly, you say that this new French law is an outrage, and the criticims isn't even-handed. But lets put things in perspective for a second.

US: Invasion of Afghanistan (suspect motives), Invasion of Iraq (very suspect motives), lack of even-handedness when dealing with people like Israel (which I believe is the real problem from a Middle-Eastern perspective). Number of Muslim lives lost in the process, for whatever reason: some 600,000.

France: Stupid law against cultural symbolism in schools. Applied across the board against Jews, Catholics, Muslims, etc. Maybe everybody's crying, but they can't be accused of discriminating against any one set of people. Lives lost: 0.

Simple as that really.

lili

well, about the hijab and school there are many parameters to consider.
for me, it's more a question of social problem.

passive

If in the future a new fascism rises, or anything similar and Ireland is invaded, who would we turn to. America.

unless, in the future, America becomes a new fascism? we'd probably turn to them anyway...or bend over and take it to avoid losing money from American multinationals

Hobbes

People complaining over headscarfs (which they are allowed protest about) vs being locked away with no rights and without being charged for as long as Bush feels like it, or if he doesn't like you he will deport you to a country that condones tourture because torture is illegal in the US.

Sorry, not seeing the comparison here.

Headscarf thing is wrong imho, but if you read up on it you would notice it is not just Muslims getting the bad end of the stick in relation to the religious wearing of clothes. So it's not just them complaining.

chill

I'd like to hear your views. Please do not reply with "but bush rigged the election!" or "the weapons of mass destruction evidence was false" because i have dealt with these issues briefly and it is not an appraisal of American foreign policy. If you feel the criticism is fair then sure, let me know why. This is just a thought I've been wondering of late, I just feel America deserves a refreshed opinion.
Enda [/B]

You are quaintly optimistic Enda. The vast majority of posters here are viscerally anti american and have no interest in anything that any other country, including Ireland does, or anything the mass murdering terrorists or terrorist states do. They're only interst is in attacking anything and everything america does while ignoring any inconvenient fact that interferes with that view.
The viscious evil war by international terrorists and terrorist states on America and the West is ignored. The acquisition of wmd by those terrorists and the fact that they will use them if they can is ignored. Mass murder by terrorist states is ignored. Mass torture by terrorist states is ignored. Institutionalised rape by terrorist states is ignored. Europe's total failure to play it's part in the world is ignored. Europe's failure to support good against evil is ignored. Europe's failure to protect itself is ignored. America's liberation of Europe is ignored. America's protection of the west against the Soviet expansion is ignored. America's liberation of the people's around the world including Haiti, South Africa, Afghanistan and Iraq is ignored. and last but not least, Ireland's total abdication of taking any moral position in a pathetic and hypocritical effort to appear 'neutral' is completely ignored.

You won't find much willingness to engage in any kind of rational discussion of the role of the US here.

Hobbes

Originally posted by chill
*snip*

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Geromino

Originally posted by Hobbes
People complaining over headscarfs (which they are allowed protest about) vs being locked away with no rights and without being charged for as long as Bush feels like it, or if he doesn't like you he will deport you to a country that condones tourture because torture is illegal in the US.

Sorry, not seeing the comparison here.

Headscarf thing is wrong imho, but if you read up on it you would notice it is not just Muslims getting the bad end of the stick in relation to the religious wearing of clothes. So it's not just them complaining.

Where is it in the Constitution that non-US citizens have the same rights as prescribed as US citizens. When I travel, I do not have the same rights as the Japanese when I travel to Japan, or Chinese rights when I travel to China, or even Thai rights when I travel to Thailand. They are also deemed enemy combatants and thus have very limited rights under the Geneva Convention. They do not have the rights under US Constitution and subsequent treaties.

Victor

Originally posted by Geromino
Where is it in the Constitution that non-US citizens have the same rights as prescribed as US citizens. When I travel, I do not have the same rights as the Japanese when I travel to Japan, or Chinese rights when I travel to China, or even Thai rights when I travel to Thailand. They are also deemed enemy combatants and thus have very limited rights under the Geneva Convention. They do not have the rights under US Constitution and subsequent treaties.

Is this in the right thread?

Hobbes

Originally posted by Geromino
Where is it in the Constitution that non-US citizens have the same rights as prescribed as US citizens.

Who was talking about just non-US citizens? Pay attention to what is going on in your country.

Incidently, go read your bill of rights. It mentions "people" not "Americans". Of course you may not see non-Americans as "people". Nothing I can do about that.

When I travel, I do not have the same rights as the Japanese when I travel to Japan, or Chinese rights when I travel to China, or even Thai rights when I travel to Thailand.

Actually you have the same, or more to the point probably more as your countries consolate would at least check up on you (its thier job, even if they cannot do anything directly). You have actually visited China and Thailand?

They are also deemed enemy combatants and thus have very limited rights under the Geneva Convention. They do not have the rights under US Constitution and subsequent treaties.

You are talking about the people at gitmo bay. Actually they have rights under the Geneva Convention, it is the US that is refusing to follow the convention.

lili

Originally posted by chill
You are quaintly optimistic Enda. The vast majority of posters here are viscerally anti american and have no interest in anything that any other country, including Ireland does, or anything the mass murdering terrorists or terrorist states do. They're only interst is in attacking anything and everything america does while ignoring any inconvenient fact that interferes with that view.
The viscious evil war by international terrorists and terrorist states on America and the West is ignored. The acquisition of wmd by those terrorists and the fact that they will use them if they can is ignored. Mass murder by terrorist states is ignored. Mass torture by terrorist states is ignored. Institutionalised rape by terrorist states is ignored. Europe's total failure to play it's part in the world is ignored. Europe's failure to support good against evil is ignored. Europe's failure to protect itself is ignored. America's liberation of Europe is ignored. America's protection of the west against the Soviet expansion is ignored. America's liberation of the people's around the world including Haiti, South Africa, Afghanistan and Iraq is ignored. and last but not least, Ireland's total abdication of taking any moral position in a pathetic and hypocritical effort to appear 'neutral' is completely ignored.

You won't find much willingness to engage in any kind of rational discussion of the role of the US here.

chill, don't talk about good against evil please, but american's interests against what or who are an obstacle to them.

chill

Enda, this is exactly what I meant in my post ...

Originally posted by lili
chill, don't talk about good against evil please, but american's interests against what or who are an obstacle to them.

This is a reply that equates anyone who opposes US wishes to evil and asserts that there is no such thing as evil, only those who oppose Amercia's interests.

It asserts that murdering thousands of innocent iraqi people every month is not evil - it asserts that raping thousands of women in front of their families is not evil - it asserts that creating WMD and planning to share them with Al Quida is not evil - it asserts that using airplanes full of hundreds of passengers as a missile into buildings containing 50,000 people at work is not evil - it asserts that using poison gas to murder tens of thousands of innocent people in Iraqi villages is not evil - it asserts that paying families in Palestine to send their sons to Isreal to blow themselves up in order to murder as many Israeli women and childen as possible is not evil - it asserts that subjugating women i Aghanistan by the wearing of the Burkha and executing them in football stadiums is not evil.

I don't share those kinds of warped values.

sovtek

Originally posted by Geromino
They are also deemed enemy combatants and thus have very limited rights under the Geneva Convention.

They do have rights under the Geneva Convention and even if there is a question one or two people in the Pentagon or the White House can make that determination.

They do not have the rights under US Constitution and subsequent treaties. [/B]

The US Constitution has virtually no relevance here. Although I would be interested in how you think it would support the internment of the people in Gitmo?
The relevant treaty here is the Geneva Convention in regards to foreign fighters captured during a war in a foreign country. That's assuming that they were even foreign fighters and not aid workers like some might possibly be.
The Geneva Convention is a treaty America has ratified and by the Constitution must abide by.

Hobbes

Originally posted by chill
*snip*

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Try for some more.

bonkey

I thought the whole point of using Gitmo originally was that it was not US soil, and therefore the US legal system and Constitution would not apply....because were it to do so the prisoners would require more rights than they were given?

And wasn't this recently overturned by the Supreme Court, who decided that they did have jurisdiction, and that the prisoners had certain rights???

jc

Gerry

Enda, it is true to say that Bush and America are getting too much criticism at the moment. But this is partially because people find it tough to focus on more than one thing at the same time, and right now America is seen as being the most important.
After all, it does seem that there are a lot of possibly unsatisfactory things going on in the most powerful country in the world, internally and externally.

The willingness of the Bush Administration to lie, and to rope the British into lying is quite disturbing.
I do agree that it is good that Saddam was removed, but the justifications for this are in the past, he did not pose a threat to anyone at the time of the war. Oh yeah, and he is a dictator, but there are plenty of dictators around the world who have been left untouched.
Why Saddam? Well officially because of Bush's strategy of fostering "Freedom and Democracy" in the middle east. I'd like to believe him, I'm really trying to. What he is more likely to mean is a foothold, a power base in the middle east. I just have major issues with how he is going about it, and how much freedom and democracy he is willing to sacrifice in his own country to get it.

I notice in this thread, that anyone taking a pro america line thinks it's ok to casually slip the WMD threat back into their arguments, as if their presence was never doubted. It doesn't help you.

The link between Saddam and Al-Queida has even less proof behind than that of WMD. No intelligence agency has reported any co-operation whatsoever. It has been left up to the public to assume there is a connection. But nobody assumes that Bush is telling the truth. It seems more like a convenient way to switch focus, while still being able to say they were hunting Osama.

In conclusion, I think that Bush could have spent the runup to the war convincing the international community of the need to go to war based on the hard evidence of Saddams atrocities in the past, without relying on dubious evidence, or conjecture.

You are quaintly optimistic Enda. The vast majority of posters here are viscerally anti american and have no interest in anything that any other country, including Ireland does, or anything the mass murdering terrorists or terrorist states do. They're only interst is in attacking anything and everything america does while ignoring any inconvenient fact that interferes with that view.

You should have another look at the posts people have placed here chill. I'd actually suggest you read the one abt why people hate america. And i mean read it, not scan it. You see most people here, like Americans. We're appreciative of a number of conflicts/wars that the US has intervened in. We're appreciative of alot of what the US has to stand for.

But, we're not blind to their actions. What they have done in the past is no excuse for what they might do in the future. Its criticism and a bit of suspicion. And its justified in light of their actions in the last 5 years.

The viscious evil war by international terrorists and terrorist states on America and the West is ignored. The acquisition of wmd by those terrorists and the fact that they will use them if they can is ignored. Mass murder by terrorist states is ignored. Mass torture by terrorist states is ignored. Institutionalised rape by terrorist states is ignored. Europe's total failure to play it's part in the world is ignored. Europe's failure to support good against evil is ignored. Europe's failure to protect itself is ignored. America's liberation of Europe is ignored. America's protection of the west against the Soviet expansion is ignored. America's liberation of the people's around the world including Haiti, South Africa, Afghanistan and Iraq is ignored. and last but not least, Ireland's total abdication of taking any moral position in a pathetic and hypocritical effort to appear 'neutral' is completely ignored.

erm, what? Evil? I'm not religious. So i don't tend to use the word. <shrugs>

As for ignoring Terrorism, you might want to look over Europes history for the last 50 years or more. Europe has alot more experience of terrorism than what you seem to believe. Just because we're not intent on invading every nation on earth, we're seen as doing nothing? Come On! (Besides by your reasoning, the UK should be criticised since theyt're part of Europe and yet provided alot to Iraq).

Chill, think on this for one second. It took an actual attack on the US for them to respond to Terrorism. The US is looking for revenge. Simply put, they're looking to make someone pay. And they've succeeded. But prior to Sept 11, i didn';t see the US rush out to defend nations being attacked by dictators, rebels or Terrorists. The US was more than happy to do the same as what Europe is doing now. Living with it.

You won't find much willingness to engage in any kind of rational discussion of the role of the US here

Yup, especially with a comment like that at the end. You see you need to be prepared to listen and consider the otehr persons points before you decide one way or another. You've already decided that you won't get any rational responses. We haven't.

This is a reply that equates anyone who opposes US wishes to evil and asserts that there is no such thing as evil, only those who oppose Amercia's interests.

I don't share those kinds of warped values.

I don't think he does either. I must admit i thought you were trying to be offensive in your last post though.

You see, not everything that the US does is acceptable. They have done barbaric things in the past, and well might do so in the future. Every nation out there has done decent & nasty things in the last 100 years, and the US because they have taken the Moral stance is not excempt from this. And I would say the same about Ireland, and any other nation.

America used atomic weapons once, during the greatest war ever against what was an evil nation to save lives in the long run. Yes 80,000 Hiroshiams were killed but how many would have had to be killed to win the war in Japan, and how many Americans would have died too? And America will not used chemical weapons again. They've learned their lesson, and you cannot blame Bush for Vietnam.

Enda. A few things abt this.

How the hell are you judging Japan as being an "evil" Empire? Because they didn't stand with the Allies in WW2? What determines their being "Evil"?

Second question: Where are you getting this concrete knowledge that the US will never use chemical weapons ever again? The largest arsenal of such weapons in the world, and one thats still producing them (and researching worse ones)? This is not so much a dig at the US, but i'm curios to know where you get this blind faith..

If in the future a new fascism rises, or anything similar and Ireland is invaded, who would we turn to. America.

Who would we turn to? the UK probably. If not them, then the EU. Because by that happens i certainly hope the EU will have gotten itself together by then.

mycroft

The viscious evil war by international terrorists and terrorist states on America and the West is ignored. The acquisition of wmd by those terrorists and the fact that they will use them if they can is ignored. Mass murder by terrorist states is ignored. Mass torture by terrorist states is ignored. Institutionalised rape by terrorist states is ignored

And you're ignoring the facts that;

The US has supplied and armed terrorist organisations, Afgan rebels in the 80s.

Supports Turkey, which is engaging in brutal repression of Kurdish minorities.

Mass torture. Pinochet was funded and his troops trained by the School of the Americas, and CIA.

and you cannot blame Bush for Vietnam.

No but I can blame Rumsfield who was Nixon's chief of staff then. The simple fact is so many members of Bush's administration of been involved in underhand and illegal dealings and are so in with the miltary industrial complex, that you must, at the very least, question the reasoning and distance between the US govt, and major corporations. One only needs to look at Dick Cheney's background and the distruption of contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq.

America used atomic weapons once, during the greatest war ever against what was an evil nation to save lives in the long run. Yes 80,000 Hiroshiams were killed but how many would have had to be killed to win the war in Japan

Okay I love this good v evil thing. 1.7 million Japanese civilians were killed by US firebombing of Japanese cities. The firebombing of Dresden was an act designed to cow the German people. One of Nixon's advisors (recently had a film made about him) who was in US stragetic air command said "that if the japanese had won, there would be a justifiable case againist them (USAF) to face war crimes charges".

Can we please stop the John Wayne approach to the WW2, the US and Europe did brutal morally dubious acts to achieve freedom. No one was "evil"

If in the future a new fascism rises, or anything similar and Ireland is invaded, who would we turn to. America.

Yes yes yes, my god what a profound argument. Honestly Enda, the country I think that is most like to turn into that futuristic bogey man is American. Strong sense of national idenity (which Europe thanks to the EU has lost) serious intolerance, and budget that is spirally out of control, not to mention an exploitive right wing. We're one stock market crash from having a dicator in the white house.

bonkey

Originally posted by chill
The vast majority of posters here are viscerally anti american and have no interest in anything that any other country, including Ireland does, or anything the mass murdering terrorists or terrorist states do.

And one could just as equally say that the vast majority of "pro-American" supporters here have no interest in international law, whether or not the US lives up to the standards it sets for others, and have no interest in how America goes about its actions.

But of course, that would be about as accurate as your picture of those who offer criticism of America.

America's liberation of the people's around the world including Haiti, South Africa, Afghanistan and Iraq is ignored.

South Africa? The US invaded South Africa to end Apartheid? Really????

And I think you may find that large amounts of Afghanistan are not, in fact, liberated from anything.

But I guess its ok for you to ignore facts like that, because its only wrong for American-criticisers to ignore stuff.

Ireland's total abdication of taking any moral position in a pathetic and hypocritical effort to appear 'neutral' is completely ignored.

So you missed the myriad of threads which contained massive discussion pro- and anti- the Irish stance? The vandalism of aircraft in Shannon, and the ensuing discussions?

Or are you - again - conveniently ignoring the facts which don't suit your argument whilst seeking to chastise others for allegedly doing the same.

You won't find much willingness to engage in any kind of rational discussion of the role of the US here.

At least you didn't qualify that to limit it to the anti-American posters.....

If in the future a new fascism rises, or anything similar and Ireland is invaded, who would we turn to. America.

This question and answer basically implies we should indenture ourselves to the US and do what they tell us (effefctively giving up our independance) just in case that someday we may find our independance under threat from some currently non-existant military force.

Whats that you were saying about rational?



jc

chill

Originally posted by klaz You should have another look at the posts people have placed here chill. I'd actually suggest you read the one abt why people hate america. And i mean read it, not scan it. You see most people here, like Americans. We're appreciative of a number of conflicts/wars that the US has intervened in. We're appreciative of alot of what the US has to stand for.

You're entitled to your opinion. Mine is different and my reading of the totality of posts on Boards over the year is different.

erm, what? Evil? I'm not religious. So i don't tend to use the word. <shrugs>

Please read the post that I was responding to. It is that that refers to 'evil'.

As for ignoring Terrorism, you might want to look over Europes history for the last 50 years or more. Europe has alot more experience of terrorism than what you seem to believe. Just because we're not intent on invading every nation on earth, we're seen as doing nothing? Come On! (Besides by your reasoning, the UK should be criticised since theyt're part of Europe and yet provided alot to Iraq).

I don't agree. Europe on the whole tolerates terrorism and the kind of international terrorism that is now practiced by Al Queda is also in another league. The peopel of much of Europe appear to be taking a view that they are not in danger directly and that it is the US that is the target. I will be interested to see what happens when Paris is targeted, or Frankfurt, or Berlin. I sugest there will be a sudden seismic shift in opinion.
Thankfully there is someone willing to stand up to them and take some action even if others prefer to stand back and receive the benefits.

Chill, think on this for one second. It took an actual attack on the US for them to respond to Terrorism. The US is looking for revenge. Simply put, they're looking to make someone pay.

And exactly what is wrong with making people pay for mass murder ? What is wrong for wanting to hit back at those mass murderers ? Or perhaps you are suggesting that we send a few detectives off to the middle east to try to arrest them ?

And they've succeeded. But prior to Sept 11, i didn';t see the US rush out to defend nations being attacked by dictators, rebels or Terrorists. The US was more than happy to do the same as what Europe is doing now. Living with it.

This is the kind of one demensional argument that I was criticising earlier. You conveniently avoid America's action against Libya and against Iraq and other countries and organisations many years earlier. What exactly has Europe done ?

Yup, especially with a comment like that at the end. You see you need to be prepared to listen and consider the otehr persons points before you decide one way or another. You've already decided that you won't get any rational responses. We haven't.

That's a simple statement of my opinion based on the overwhelming majority of posts I read here. Have I decided ? of course I have decided.. I've been reading them.

I don't think he does either. I must admit i thought you were trying to be offensive in your last post though.

When ? When I gave my opinion that those values are warped ? So this is a forbidden opinion then ? I find it quite offensive when people make those allegations that I equate opposition to the US as evil.

You see, not everything that the US does is acceptable. They have done barbaric things in the past, and well might do so in the future. Every nation out there has done decent & nasty things in the last 100 years, and the US because they have taken the Moral stance is not excempt from this. And I would say the same about Ireland, and any other nation.

Except you don't and the vast majority on Boards don't. It's a long diatribe of half accurate half truths aimed at America alone. Read through those threads and compare how many people post any criticism of European countries or Ireland for doing nothing to tackle international terrorism or evil regimes ...

to Enda: How the hell are you judging Japan as being an "evil" Empire? Because they didn't stand with the Allies in WW2? What determines their being "Evil"?

So you don't characterise the way they prosecuted the war in the far east as evil ?

Who would we turn to? the UK probably. If not them, then the EU. Because by that happens i certainly hope the EU will have gotten itself together by then.

Gotten itself together like Ireland ? How will your grandchildren feel if they throw their hands in the air and say that Ireland spent fifty years neutral, so they'll remain neutral while we get screwed ?

chill

Originally posted by bonkey
And one could just as equally say that the vast majority of "pro-American" supporters here have no interest in international law, whether or not the US lives up to the standards it sets for others, and have no interest in how America goes about its actions.
jc

Much as I'd like to respond to this and other inaccurate post by moderators, on advice - I'm not prepared to risk getting banned again by engaging in argument with them.

mr_angry

Originally posted by chill
Much as I'd like to respond to this and other inaccurate post by moderators, on advice - I'm not prepared to risk getting banned again by engaging in argument with them.

To be honest, Chill, I think Bonkey's post correctly analysed the blinkered view that most people take on these subjects. These views tend to be blatantly pro-American or anti-American, and I think Bonkey's post was demonstrating what the anti-American stance often is. I don't think it was a statement of (supposed) fact.

This kind of argument is just typical of the effect that polarised politics have on us - "you're either with us or against us" - and that's why it generates so much opinion on Boards. Everybody has an either black or white opinion. In my opinion, polarised politics never really works, and that's why I've stopped giving opinions on this kind of thing.

bonkey

Originally posted by chill
I'm not prepared to risk getting banned again by engaging in argument with them.

No-one has ever been banned from this forum purely for arguing a topic with a moderator. Several people have used it as a handy excuse though.

If you can argue your point without attacking the individual(s) rather than their arguments, then feel free.

If you can't....well it just adds weight to my response to your "rational argument" point.

jc

p.s. In the interests of also following the rules...seeing as you're so concerned about possibly breaking them in your replies.....if you can't show that your "vast majority" claims are anything but speculation or personal opinion, you should qualify it as being speculation as opinion.

If you're not going to do that, then some proof would be nice. That would, naturally, involve showing that the vast majority (i.e. including a percentage breakdown) of posts/posters not only say what you claim they do, but also mean what you claim they mean......something I'm pretty sure you aren't going to do.

bonkey

Originally posted by mr_angry
I think Bonkey's post was demonstrating what the anti-American stance often is. I don't think it was a statement of (supposed) fact.

My post was illustrating that one can just as easily make inaccurate, unsupportable generalisations about what is generally considered the "pro American camp" as chill can about what is generally considered the "anti-American camp".

I offered as much evidence in support of my allegation as Chill has offered to support his - none.

So, if Chill wishses anyone to accept his argument on face value, he should accept mine by the same token.

Alternately, if and when he wishes to apply any criticism to my generalisation and explain the flawed logic it is based on, I will apply the same analysis to his own generalisations, and show that they suffer the same flaws.

Bear in mind, of course, that he (and I in suit) referred to "the vast majority" of posters of like opinion....therefore picking individual examples as some sort of counter-argument is entirely specious, as it ignores the concept of what a majority actually implies

Everybody has an either black or white opinion.

Many people have...not everybody.

Hell, in half of the discussions on this board that I enter, I do so more to rile some black/white absolutist up than I do to actually defend what I believe in....

You're entitled to your opinion. Mine is different and my reading of the totality of posts on Boards over the year is different.

Well thanks. I'm glad we both are allowed to have opinions. That way there's a possiblity either of us could be wrong.

Please read the post that I was responding to. It is that that refers to 'evil'.

<Sigh> When you think Evil, what do you think of? Its normally held beside a persons religious beliefs. I could be completly mistaken in this, but my own feelings scream out not to use that..... word.

I don't agree. Europe on the whole tolerates terrorism and the kind of international terrorism that is now practiced by Al Queda is also in another league. The peopel of much of Europe appear to be taking a view that they are not in danger directly and that it is the US that is the target. I will be interested to see what happens when Paris is targeted, or Frankfurt, or Berlin. I sugest there will be a sudden seismic shift in opinion.

But thats the thing. These cities have been targeted in the past, and the responses were within the boundries created for such situations. The US stepped outside those boundaries in regards to Afghanistan, which was understandable. Iraq on the otehr hand was pushing it a fair bit. At the time coming up and just after the invasion i hadn't seen much info that related Saddam to an attack on America. His actions in Iraq were terrible, but never once were they the reasons given. This was included in the US's "War against Terror"

Thankfully there is someone willing to stand up to them and take some action even if others prefer to stand back and receive the benefits.

Not really. As for Iraq see above. Afghanistan? I haven't seen it turn into a civilised country yet. Its easy to take action. I'd rather see what the reprecussions are going to be. And what will be spawned by the War on Terror could be alot worse than what went before.

And exactly what is wrong with making people pay for mass murder ? What is wrong for wanting to hit back at those mass murderers ? Or perhaps you are suggesting that we send a few detectives off to the middle east to try to arrest them ?

I'm more interested in the correct people paying for it. But tell me something. These mass murderers are the people who organised Sept 11? Why not located and use commando sections, rather than use 250k + troops? As for the dectectives, the concept is the same as using the CIA to find these people and dispose of them.

This is the kind of one demensional argument that I was criticising earlier. You conveniently avoid America's action against Libya and against Iraq and other countries and organisations many years earlier. What exactly has Europe done ?

Europe? Cleaned up after the US has invaded? You might notice that most of the actions teh US has been involved in, some European nation sends in troops for peacekeeping. I'm not putting down what teh US does, but don't disparage EU actions when the US is not prepared to them.

As for Libya, Iraq etc. As another poster has mentioned, the US placed most of them in positions of power in the first place so please forgive me if i'm a little slow to clap.

That's a simple statement of my opinion based on the overwhelming majority of posts I read here. Have I decided ? of course I have decided.. I've been reading them.

yes, but you leave no space to move. You've decided you're right. There are no grey areas. There are no uncertainties. Black or white. The end.

Except you don't and the vast majority on Boards don't. It's a long diatribe of half accurate half truths aimed at America alone. Read through those threads and compare how many people post any criticism of European countries or Ireland for doing nothing to tackle international terrorism or evil regimes ...

Start a thread abt another nation stating clearly what you think whats wrong with them, their history etc, and you'll get people discussing them. At the moment the US is in constant limelight, so there'll be alot of posts. Besides the majority of posts i've seen abt the US lately are questions as to why everyone criticises the US. <Shrugs> In Six weeks time, it could be a majority of threads asking why Ireland is Neutral.

So you don't characterise the way they prosecuted the war in the far east as evil ?

no i don't. They were an empire at war. They commited mass murder, but then i look at the Atomic bombs as being the same. Just as i see the firebombing of Dresden. Or the targeting of civilian areas to create panic in Germany. Or the direct shelling of Hospitals by the Allies to take out german wounded. Or the machine gunning of Japanese sailors in the water. Or German Troops dying of exposure in prisons in France. Or the handing of German prisoners to French resistance, rather than bringing them behind the lines. Take your pick. In war nobody is innocent.

Evil? No. Again i don't like the word. Crinimal? yes. But then i'd include the leaders of the Allies in that also.

Gotten itself together like Ireland ? How will your grandchildren feel if they throw their hands in the air and say that Ireland spent fifty years neutral, so they'll remain neutral while we get screwed ?

I never said Ireland. I said Europe. You know that thingy thats started called the EU? Some of us believe it could become a superpower. And i was talking abt the future. Its a long way off yet.

claidheamh

Originally posted by Enda Hargaden


America used atomic weapons once, during the greatest war ever against what was an evil nation to save lives in the long run. Yes 80,000 Hiroshiams were killed but...

Enda

but...
The A-bomb was used twice:

About 60 kilograms of highly-enriched uranium was used in the bomb which was released over Hiroshima, Japan's seventh largest city, on 6 August 1945. Some 90% of the city was destroyed-it was estimated that 45 000 died on the first day and a further 19 000 during the subsequent four months. 64,000 total

It was over this section of Nagasaki that the second atomic bomb exploded at 11:02 a.m., August 9, 1945. Nagasaki City Atomic Bomb Records Preservation Committee in July 1950- Said the committee in its report: "73,884 people were killed and 74,909 injured, and 17,358 of the deaths were confirmed by post- mortem examination soon after the atomic bombing."

and...

Total estimate-138,000 deaths.

Now just for general information:
The area is known as Urakami in Nagasaki, the district around the hypocenter (ground zero) area had been populated for centuries by Japanese people of the Roman Catholic faith. At the time of the bombing, between 15,000 and 16,000 Catholics - the majority of the approximately 20,000 people of that faith in Nagasaki and about half of the local population - lived in the Urakami district. It is said that about 10,000 Catholics were killed by the atomic bomb.


Facts, they're funny little things...

DadaKopf

The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were unnecessary. They were deliberately targeted to cause maximum destruction and human carnage and, as such, the acts constitute a war crime in the same way Bomber Harris' bombing of Dresden does.

If the US dropped the bomb on an island inhabited only by Japanese combatants in the middle of the Pacific, it would have had the same effect. It would have ended the war with less human carnage.

lili

Originally posted by chill



I don't agree. Europe on the whole tolerates terrorism and the kind of international terrorism that is now practiced by Al Queda is also in another league. The peopel of much of Europe appear to be taking a view that they are not in danger directly and that it is the US that is the target. I will be interested to see what happens when Paris is targeted, or Frankfurt, or Berlin. I sugest there will be a sudden seismic shift in opinion.
Thankfully there is someone willing to stand up to them and take some action even if others prefer to stand back and receive the benefits.


[/B]

paris have been already targeted, but we didn't bombing any countries, which one would we bombing?

Lifestay

Right well all of you seem to suggest that I am pro-America/pro-Bush etc etc.
As I said in my opening I'm not pro-America. Bush is one of the biggest threats to the planet. Please stop categorising me as "black vs white".

If you read the title of the thread it clearly states that (in my opinion) Bush/America are receiving unfair criticism. Do not press reply right now saying "they do deserve criticism for this that and the other", I agree. However many of you seem to be avoiding the fact that they are still getting unfair, or perhaps at the very least excessive criticism. The bombings of Japan and Dresden cannot be taken in a vacuum. And when I say they used Atomic Bombs once, you know I meant within a week, in the one country in the one war. Whether or not they were justified is absolutley arguable and in the context, I myself probably lean towards the excessive/un-necessary side. But, they are far more justified than the sort of destruction and death that people like Osama and Saddam have used/would use them.

With regard to 'evil' as being religious, it's not. There is a line between right or wrong, whether you are religious or not. Moral relativism is a pile of (stinking, festering donkey) poo that holds no ground. (If you want proof here - do not take it up with me). However, it is very clear to any reasonable being that in WW2 there were two sides, one that was just and one that was oppresive and evil.

George Bush has his wrongs. He is a disaster of a president. But when people walk around calling him the biggest terrorist in the world and a Nazi they are just blind and being unduly critical. He's a f*ckwit, admitedly, this is not what this thread is about. This is about the undue crap he gets. Bush holds people in G. Bay wrongly. They should be given rights and what not and Bush gets fair criticism for this. However he is somehow elevated into the ranks of criticise for anything gang.
What I am suggesting is that people do not provide a fair critical analysis of him and America. Take the mini-scandal occuring in France over the religious dress as an example. A mini-scandal in France. Imagine the international uproar if Bush had brought that in. Perhaps that uproar would be fair, but why not uproar at France?
How many bajillion people protested when Bush visited London? Was there even a hush when Putin arrived in London?

This... basically implies we should indenture ourselves to the US and do what they tell us (effefctively giving up our independance) just in case that someday we may find our independance under threat from some currently non-existant military force.

I disagree. That's taking an inch and going a mile. What I'm saying is that we should not criticise that which we, if in a difficult situation, would rely on. I'm saying let's not be hypocritical; it's all well and good to criticise it now but when it comes to the balls of the situation we'd back it.



In my first post I requested this not become a debate on American policy. It has. This may well kill the debate but please do not just post criticisms of America/Bush/Bush's policy etc al, that's not what I intended this thread to be, but rather for it to be a fair analysis of the criticism America is receiving (along the lines of Gerry's post) rather than fair criticisms of America. The America/Bush debate is all well and good, and if the thread continues on that note perhaps the title should be changed, it's still a good topic. If, as I expect, this thread wanders off into obscurity at least share the thought that maybe everyone is jumping on the anti-Bush bandwagon a bit too hastily, rather than give the fair, objective critique he deserves.

Enda

bonkey

Originally posted by Enda Hargaden
However, it is very clear to any reasonable being that in WW2 there were two sides, one that was just and one that was oppresive and evil.

Except that WW2 was fought between aggressors and defenders, not between good and evil, or for any idfeological reason like "they're doing nothing to us, but must be stopped because they're monsters".

It was a territorial war - the Germans wanted expansion room, as did the Japenese. They went to war to obtain it, and in the process comitted atrocities almost beyond belief. However, this does not excuse the atrocities comitted by the defenders.

Yes, the Allies had the moral high ground for their reason for going to war in the first place, but this does not mean they have carte-blanche in their actions while at war.

But when people walk around calling him the biggest terrorist in the world and a Nazi they are just blind and being unduly critical.

I would have said that they are using the same level of inaccurate stereotyping designed to evoke an emotional rather than rational response that Bush and his Administration (as well as Blair and his) use when characterising their targets.

As a simple example, look at the number of people who linked Saddam Hussein with 9/11 following massive amounts of comments from the US administration implying that Saddam and Osama were bestest buddies and in cahoots.

Yes, Bush receives overly-emotional, inaccurate criticism from some quarters...just as he uses overly-emotional, inaccurate criticism to sell his chosen path to the public. Now tell me who should be held to a higher standard? The man in the street, making comments to his mates....or the President of the most powerful nation in the world, who's words influence millions and realistically shape the future?

And yet it is Bush you are defending from the overly emotional criticism. Is it worse that someone on boards likens him to Hitler, or that he does so with a world leader in order to drum up public support to invade a nation? Is it worse that someone on boards.ie says that the US is the greatest threat to world peace because they believe it, or that Bush says it about someone as a precursor to a war which may have been justifiable, but which was most certainly not necessary.

You seem to be saying that the man on the street needs to hold what he says to a higher standard of honesty and accuracy than the world leaders. When a politician is inaccurate, we should accept it as part of the political game - rhetoric or what have you. Yet, when the man on the street does the same, its anti-this, or hatred of that, or whatever.

I'm saying let's not be hypocritical; it's all well and good to criticise it now but when it comes to the balls of the situation we'd back it.

Yes - lets not be hypocritical. Lets hold the man in the street to a maximum of the same level of honest and accountability as we hold politicians.

but rather for it to be a fair analysis of the criticism America is receiving (along the lines of Gerry's post) rather than fair criticisms of America.

Good point. Lets limit ourselves to that. Apologies if I've been rambling off topic.

If, as I expect, this thread wanders off into obscurity at least share the thought that maybe everyone is jumping on the anti-Bush bandwagon a bit too hastily, rather than give the fair, objective critique he deserves.

For me, the problem is that too many people seem to be of the attitude that "if you don't agree with me, your critiquemust therefore be unfair and lacking in objectivity". Couple that with a growing tendancy to insult the opposing mindset rather than challenge the reasoning it is based on (in my perception...its mostly a trend amongst Bush supporters, but thats probably incorrect, and probably helps prove my point about "if you don't agree with me"), and what do you have?

You have a lack of rational debate, because too many people are convinced that only their viewpoint is rational, and everything else is - by extension - based on irrationality!

jc

With regard to 'evil' as being religious, it's not. There is a line between right or wrong, whether you are religious or not. Moral relativism is a pile of (stinking, festering donkey) poo that holds no ground. (If you want proof here - do not take it up with me).

The thing is, that Evil is an absolute. Its a black or white word. There is no space for compromise. And the problem with this is that when dealing with human nature there are no absolutes. You cannot say with complete certainty that one person is evil. You can say what they did was awful, terrible, crinimal etc, but you need to leave some space, since all your info is second hand. Also no one person is completely "evil". Stalin who ordere millions killed, had periods of love towards friends and companions. he was quite insane, but not an absolute nature.

As for your link, its not proof. Its just another person saying what they believe. Its not fact, its a theory.

That is why i dislike people discribing an empire or a person as being "good" or "Evil"

However many of you seem to be avoiding the fact that they are still getting unfair, or perhaps at the very least excessive criticism.

I'm curious to know which of the criticism's are unfair though. There's been alot of criticisms of Bush & America in the past year, so i'd like to know which ones specifically you have problems with. Then we can say whether we agree or not.

(Just to mention as per below, the majority of critics are targeted at the Policies of Bush/America)

But, they are far more justified than the sort of destruction and death that people like Osama and Saddam have used/would use them.

History is written by the victors, and if Saddam, Osama or their idiologies succeed, then its possible they'll be saying the exact same thing about America's actions or how every other nation out there has responded to terrorism. I daresay Osama feels the deaths he's caused are justified by the deaths he has seen at the hands of US troops. Its all a matter of perception.

However, it is very clear to any reasonable being that in WW2 there were two sides, one that was just and one that was oppresive and evil.

There were two sides. Agreed. Actually no, there were three sides, since Japanese and German Troops to my knowledge never fought side by side against the allies.

But as for the oppressive being on one side, remember that Stalin was part of the Allies, and he caused just as many deaths as Hitler ever did. Its just kinda glossed over because it goes against the wonderful Allies idea...

Take the mini-scandal occuring in France over the religious dress as an example. A mini-scandal in France. Imagine the international uproar if Bush had brought that in. Perhaps that uproar would be fair, but why not uproar at France?

Probably because the way it was brought about. Bush would have stood tall and told his fellow americans that this is just another step in the War against Terrorism. That they would have to make sacrifices, but with God on their side they would be victorious. And it would of course be broadcasted across America and probably the world.

France on the other hand, kept this as a domestic decision and has not advertised to teh world looking for support. Personally i think its a good idea, and one that might help reduce some of the multi-racial tensions in France.

But when people walk around calling him the biggest terrorist in the world and a Nazi they are just blind and being unduly critical. He's a f*ckwit, admitedly, this is not what this thread is about. This is about the undue crap he gets. Bush holds people in G. Bay wrongly. They should be given rights and what not and Bush gets fair criticism for this.

To be honest i haven't seen too many recent comparisons between Hitler and Bush. I heard a few, and even posted a few when Iraq was about to be invaded. And i still hold to them. But these were opinions, not facts. But where is the line drawn. Where does it say that your opinion that bush is a f*ckwit, not mean that it is unfair criticism and that my feelings that he is the greatest threat to world stability is unfair?

That's taking an inch and going a mile. What I'm saying is that we should not criticise that which we, if in a difficult situation, would rely on. I'm saying let's not be hypocritical; it's all well and good to criticise it now but when it comes to the balls of the situation we'd back it.

By that reasoning, i should never ever take off my jacket, because it might rain. And it could rain inside my house, so i better wear it there.

We can criticise America/Bush, because we have to face the results of his actions. At the end of teh day, what he decides affects the world. I don't criticise France's domestic policy. Do you know why? Because it doesn't affect my life. But when it does, i'll be there to state my opinion.

In my first post I requested this not become a debate on American policy. It has. This may well kill the debate but please do not just post criticisms of America/Bush/Bush's policy etc al, that's not what I intended this thread to be, but rather for it to be a fair analysis of the criticism America is receiving (along the lines of Gerry's post) rather than fair criticisms of America.

I'm afraid i don't think this can be done. You see the majority of criticism i have seen or made is towards American Policy. I haven't made many comments against America as a nation nor towards Bush directly. And from what i've seen on these boards, i can't remember too many direct attacks. Its the Policy that gets commented on, (its just that people tend to leave out the word policy, perhaps thinking people will understand) and i think you might be confusing direct attacks on America/Bush with criticism against America's Foreign/Domestic Policies.

chill

Originally posted by mr_angry
To be honest, Chill, I think Bonkey's post correctly analysed the blinkered view that most people take on these subjects.

Nice to see a measured post though don't agree with it :rolleyes: However as you can see above I have to be careful what I post here though I have been exchanging views with several other posters with similar problems though PMs. Feel free to PM me and I will respond.

chill

Originally posted by klaz
Well thanks. I'm glad we both are allowed to have opinions. That way there's a possiblity either of us could be wrong.

I'll try to respond within the bounderies applied to me here.

<Sigh> When you think Evil, what do you think of? Its normally held beside a persons religious beliefs. I could be completly mistaken in this, but my own feelings scream out not to use that..... word.

I do try to avoid hyperbole. But sometimes we try too hard to be measured and restrained. However I do believe that what we are dealing with here is a level of evil that we have not seen for a long time. Al Quida want to wipe non muslims off the earth and they want to slaughter as many as possible at a time. That deserves to be caled Evil in my opinion.

But thats the thing. These cities [Europe]have been targeted in the past, and the responses were within the boundries created for such situations.

I don't agree. No city in Europe has been the target of the kind of mass slaughter that happened in New York where they tried to kill 50,000 and thankfully managed to get far fewer. This is above abd beyond all terrorism to date imho, and it must be resonded to in a new way. Europe however has not grasped that yet and I don't think they will until it happens to them/us.

The US stepped outside those boundaries in regards to Afghanistan, which was understandable. Iraq on the otehr hand was pushing it a fair bit. At the time coming up and just after the invasion i hadn't seen much info that related Saddam to an attack on America. His actions in Iraq were terrible, but never once were they the reasons given. This was included in the US's "War against Terror"

The involvement by Saddam in terrorism are well established. His potential and aims were also well established. I believe the action against his regime were justified on many fronts. To battle international terrorism which he sponsored; to prevent him using the WMD that the UN said he had against his neighbours and selling them to international terrorists, wtih whom he had common goals and a definite relationship; to free the millions of people in Iraq from his brutal murdering regime.

Not really. As for Iraq see above. Afghanistan? I haven't seen it turn into a civilised country yet. Its easy to take action. I'd rather see what the reprecussions are going to be. And what will be spawned by the War on Terror could be alot worse than what went before.

I don't know what you're saying here. Action against Al Quida and the Taliban in Afghanistan was a totally justified and necessary action against those responsible for New York. The spin off is a free Aghanistan. To imply that because Afghanistan hasn't been turned into a civilised western society with some kind of magic wand then I reject that criticism as being extraordinarily unrealistic. Afghanistan is far freer than for decades and is well on the road to becoming as close to a democratic state as is possible in that part of the world.

I'm more interested in the correct people paying for it. But tell me something. These mass murderers are the people who organised Sept 11? Why not located and use commando sections, rather than use 250k + troops? As for the dectectives, the concept is the same as using the CIA to find these people and dispose of them.

In passing I happen to agree completely and have posted ot this affect before. I believe we (western democratic societies) should be using unconventional military teams to target/assassinate these people all round the world. Unfortunately public opinion is so obsessed with the perceived need for due process that this is not practical in the current mood. This is one of the bigest achiles heals of democratic societies when faced with the kind of extremism of Al Queda.
As far as your other point is concerned, the action against Saddam was never claimed to be an action directoly against those repsonsible for New York. And the reason for dealing with him were in my opinion well worth while. The baove targetted tactices would not have freed the millions of Iraqi people which I believe is the greatest achivement of the campaign.

Europe? Cleaned up after the US has invaded? You might notice that most of the actions teh US has been involved in, some European nation sends in troops for peacekeeping. I'm not putting down what teh US does, but don't disparage EU actions when the US is not prepared to them.

In other words Europe isn't prepared to take any direct action only come in after America takes the risks, pays the bills and does the required dirty work. I don't believe that's good enough.

As for Libya, Iraq etc. As another poster has mentioned, the US placed most of them in positions of power in the first place so please forgive me if i'm a little slow to clap.

This is a fallacious argument in my view. It is an argument that absolves these regimes of their responsibilities and if far too convenient for my liking. My point stands however. You chose to ignore these and other actions.

yes, but you leave no space to move. You've decided you're right. There are no grey areas. There are no uncertainties. Black or white. The end.

No. No more than anyone else, including yourself posting your 'views'. These are my 'views' on the situation. The purpose of exchanging views is to exhange them, not to avoid taking views because they could be deemed to be 'set' views. People express their views then listen to other's views and sometimes, just sometimes, they change their minds. Any balanced reading of the majority of posts here would clearly see that few if any are not by people who have 'decided' their view.

Start a thread about another nation stating clearly what you think whats wrong with them, their history etc, and you'll get people discussing them. At the moment the US is in constant limelight, so there'll be alot of posts. Besides the majority of posts i've seen abt the US lately are questions as to why everyone criticises the US. <Shrugs> In Six weeks time, it could be a majority of threads asking why Ireland is Neutral.

My reading of the threads doesn't concurr with yours. Every discussion of terrorism, Iraq, trade, politics in general is dominated, as I see it, by attacks on America - some of which I take part in. Few contributors ever accept criticism of Ireland or Europe.

no i don't. They were an empire at war. They commited mass murder, but then i look at the Atomic bombs as being the same. Just as i see the firebombing of Dresden. Or the targeting of civilian areas to create panic in Germany. Or the direct shelling of Hospitals by the Allies to take out german wounded. Or the machine gunning of Japanese sailors in the water. Or German Troops dying of exposure in prisons in France. Or the handing of German prisoners to French resistance, rather than bringing them behind the lines. Take your pick. In war nobody is innocent.

I'm afraid the words I would use to descibe your views would not be acceptable on this or any other Board.

chill

Originally posted by Enda Hargaden
Right well all of you seem to suggest that I am pro-America/pro-Bush etc etc.
As I said in my opening I'm not pro-America. Bush is one of the biggest threats to the planet. Please stop categorising me as "black vs white".

This is par for the course Enda. I agree with about 1% of what the Bush baby does and say so all over Boards. But any support for anything he does tends to be labelled as pro american and black and white and you can see from the responses to my views above.

If you read the title of the thread it clearly states that (in my opinion) Bush/America are receiving unfair criticism. Do not press reply right now saying "they do deserve criticism for this that and the other", I agree. However many of you seem to be avoiding the fact that they are still getting unfair, or perhaps at the very least excessive criticism.

I agree. Not just that but the criticism is so blatantly unbalanced.

The bombings of Japan and Dresden cannot be taken in a vacuum. And when I say they used Atomic Bombs once, you know I meant within a week, in the one country in the one war. Whether or not they were justified is absolutley arguable and in the context, I myself probably lean towards the excessive/un-necessary side. But, they are far more justified than the sort of destruction and death that people like Osama and Saddam have used/would use them.

There appears to be a view that is quite prevant that says that considers Al Quida's actions to be morally equivalent to America's actions now and in the past. I don't accept this. The other major view that is prevalent is that because a regime was helped by or established by a western country in past years, then they are not responsible for their actions... the original country is responsibly.

However, it is very clear to any reasonable being that in WW2 there were two sides, one that was just and one that was oppresive and evil.

I agree. The Nazi/Japanese meetings and treaty is ignored elsewhere here.

George Bush has his wrongs. He is a disaster of a president.

To put it lightly :cool:

Take the mini-scandal occuring in France over the religious dress as an example. A mini-scandal in France. Imagine the international uproar if Bush had brought that in. Perhaps that uproar would be fair, but why not uproar at France?

Few are interested in any kind of balance. Attacking America is a way of life for many.
I actually agree with the new Veil policy and it should be adopted here and elsewhere.

How many bajillion people protested when Bush visited London? Was there even a hush when Putin arrived in London?

Or any other mass murderer ? No. And no marches against the brutality of the Saddam regime either. It is selective outrage and is such blatant hypocricy.

I'm afraid the words I would use to descibe your views would not be acceptable on this or any other Board.

PM me with your views, and we'll see.

Hobbes

However, it is very clear to any reasonable being that in WW2 there were two sides, one that was just and one that was oppresive and evil.

Actually there were numerous sides, some playing off against the other and others sitting on thier asses until it came to a point where they had to make a choice.

History is normally written by the winners. If the other side had won I am sure UK/US would of been the ones to be oppresive and evil.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by bonkey

Yes, the Allies had the moral high ground for their reason for going to war in the first place, but this does not mean they have carte-blanche in their actions while at war.

[Devils advocate position]

But I thought all is fair in love and war

Yes, Bush receives overly-emotional, inaccurate criticism from some quarters...just as he uses overly-emotional, inaccurate criticism to sell his chosen path to the public. Now tell me who should be held to a higher standard? The man in the street, making comments to his mates....or the President of the most powerful nation in the world, who's words influence millions and realistically shape the future?

Ah but who has to answer to the electorate at the end of the day?
Certainly not Sadam and definitely not the terrorist.
Bush and Blair do, so to that extent their actions can be reasonably judged, their scorecard and record in office being marked every once and a while.
If rogue nations and terrorists have anything more ghastly in common, it's their lack of accountability democratically.
I know who I would give more benefit of the doubt to and it ain't the latter for those accountability reasons.
If you are held to account at the ballot box and you succeed then thats societies decision for you.
It doesn't make the method or the means necessarily right but it puts down a marker for where the boundaries lie.

Terrorists and rogue nations have no such boundaries.

[/Devils advocate position]

Sand

But I thought all is fair in love and war

You thought wrong

Shanka

Quotes from Enda Hargaden

Imagine if George Bush brought in this bill. Imagine the f*cking outrage at this, another horrendous act of the crazed Republican. I'd be quick to jump on the bandwagon of criticism but, on reflection, it would not be fair to criticise America and not criticise France. This is happening so often.

This maybe true - however the French are also banning the wearing of all religious items - including Christian crucifixes - bush having the christian right among his most fervent supporters would never bring in such a bill. At least the French are attempting to be universal in their religious intolerance.

But let's take the other side of it. A disgusting tryannical autocrat has been displaced. A disgusting character who inflicted genocide on his own people. America have taken out a leader who the people wanted out and who just about everyone in the world wanted out. In fairness the American case for war was false. But is that not excusable for what was a good deed?

Yes - America has indeed done a good thing in removing Saddam from power. I don't think even Michael Moore would argue with that. However Saddam could never have retained power in Iraq for so long if it had not been for the Americans. Saddam could not have raged war on Iran for so long if it hadn't been for the Americans. Chemical weapons? Bought from the UK, Germany and the Americans.

The problem with Iraq wasn't so much that they invaded on false pretences and against the wishes of the would community (the first time America has done so in her entire history ie. pre-emotively attacked a sovereign nation on a major scale) but rather that in doing so played exactly into the hands of Al-Qaeida. The consequences of which, we are witnessing today.

Since 11th September 2001, Bin Laden has been preaching to the Muslim world about the great jihad against the 'great satan' (ie The US and her allies) He told the Muslins that America was currently raging a 'Crusade' against all Muslims - with the aim of establishing a new world order. For examples, all he had to do was point at Israel and Palestine - at the huge air bases scattered all over the Middle East. At the last Gulf war. At all the other instances where the US has meddled in the affairs of the Muslim world.

The vast majority of Muslims, like us, think Bin Ladan is a nut. But an extreme minority doesn’t. When the US invaded Iraq, they simply confirmed everything that Al-Qaeida was saying. The current conflict in Iraq is being fought and funded partly by foreign fighters. Al-Qaeida were banking that once the war escalated, the Iraqis would follow suite. And they did for the most part. However, now the US finds itself in a situation that it is vastly unequipped for - Even America is lacking the resources to maintain control over the country. Which is what everybody said would happen.

If the US had concentrated on fighting Al-Qaeida instead of using the war on terror as an excuse to go after Saddam and the Iraqi oil fields (which was planned well before 11th of September - in fact, just after bush came to office) They could have maintained good relations with the rest of the world and enjoyed total co-operation in the fight against Al-Qaeida - Instead, the US has a mess to clean up and no-one (except for a few nations) to help them clear it up.

It didn't have to be this way. America could have waited till they had universal agreement to go into Iraq - granted, this could have taken much longer to accomplish (years perhaps) but allot of Iraqis and Allied soldiers would in turn be alive today. Saddam could have been removed and the allied occupation that took place afterwards would have insured that the transition to democracy carried out with the correct amount of resources - and not just those of America. WMS was just a lousy excuse to go war while bush was still in power - ensuring that his oil company buddies would be well looked after... That war was fought in the name of greed. Toppling Saddam was just a bonus.

The majority of historians accept that Jews have a right to Israel and contrary to popular belief, America have not done "nothing about Palestine".

In many ways they have done too much - and not in a good way. The Issue around America, Israel and Palestine is again one of money. The US gives Israel more foreign aid than any other country - huge budget allocations every year and in turn, Israel places huge orders in American arms companies - all in the name of the Israeli state 'defending' herself against insurgents. The truth is, America could cease the conflict tomorrow if they so wished. They could simply force agreement on the Israelis by threatening to take away their aid grants - The reasons why they have not done this are vast and many - however when it really comes to the crunch, only America has to power to end this conflict.

Many speculated that 11th Septemer would force the Americans to look at what they are doing in relation to Israel. Al-Qaeida's mantdate states Palestine as the biggest grievence they have with the US. They want to destroy Al-Qaeida? Then take away their main motivation for fighting: Palestine. As long as this crisis continues, Al-Qaeida will have solid ground for recruiting - Sort out Palestine and Al-Qaeida are going to find it much more difficult to assert their claims on the Muslim world.

President Putin came to England, after essentially being elected on racist claims against Kosovo. And while we're at it, when people criticise America for invading Iraq, how many congratulate them for taking out Milosevic, another inflictor of genocide?

Yes you're right - however alot of people were critical of the US then also - the difference being that in Kosavo most of Americas allies were agreed on the issue. NATO and K-4 went to war over a simple human rights issue - ie they went in to stop the massacre of the people of Kosovo - If America had stated the same reasons when they invaded Iraq, I for one would not have completely opposed the war (though I would have been slightly dubious in relation to Iraq's oil reserves.) Sometimes its all in the details.

People are very very very quick to criticise Bush, much more so than the terrorist Bin Laden. Had Bin Laden attacked Liberty Hall, would you be so quick?

Hell yes... Someone had to pay for 11th September - Afghanistan was that someone. I didn't agree with the concept of getting rid of the Taliban - however, the attacks on America were masterminded and carried out by Saudi Arabians (in the most part) Why didn't America invade Saudi? Because they have a regime that is friendly towards the US. Too much money would have been thrown away and invading Saudi could have very well kicked off WWIII.

America demanded vengeance and Afghanistan was the obvious choice. But there again, the US has under equipped themselves for the job... US troops are still dying, fighting the Taliban - but who cares as long as the oil pipeline is being built...?

This is just a thought I've been wondering of late, I just feel America deserves a refreshed opinion.

Yes, America does. The US have been critised a great deal these past four years. But for very good reasons. Please god that American public will vote out bush in November... And I think they will.... Like the rest of us, the vast majority is sick of this nonsense.

Lifestay

Since 11th September 2001, Bin Laden has been preaching to the Muslim world about the great jihad against the 'great satan' (ie The US and her allies) He told the Muslins that America was currently raging a 'Crusade' against all Muslims - with the aim of establishing a new world order. For examples, all he had to do was point at Israel and Palestine - at the huge air bases scattered all over the Middle East. At the last Gulf war. At all the other instances where the US has meddled in the affairs of the Muslim world.

Right, I know this isn't your point but for future reference let's just ask who is more like Hitler, the inarticulate anti-conservationist who attacks countries, who (let's be honest) are backward and oppressive or the fanatic who hates a race who is willing to do just about anything to eliminate this race. And I mean eliminate on the scale of the Holocaust. Not invade and ask the Northern Guard to surrender before they have to shoot them. Now on to some more points.

America could cease the [Palestinian] conflict tomorrow if they so wished. They could simply force agreement on the Israelis by threatening to take away their aid grants

Oh absolutley, and leave the Israelis to be slaughtered by suicide bombers.... that would not be another "Look at America did!" example in years to come.

Oil... oil.... oil......

Bush is an oil-tycoon but Iraq's oil is not going anywhere, a Semi-State Body is being formed to look after it for them. A semi-state body, something which is contradictory to American Láissez-Faire policies; whether backing to pressure or not the Americans are making sure the oil is being well looked after. By Iraqis.

Why didn't America invade Saudi?

Not much wrong with Saudi, they have some terrorists but so do Ireland. And with regard their governmental system, it's very good for the region. Afghanistan had a tyrannical rule which imposed Muslim rule and hated everything un-Muslim, for example, America. Afghanistan was far more of a paradise for Bin Laden than Saudi.

Please god that American public will vote out bush in November

Yep, if they vote my next door neighbour's cat Pepsi in I'd be happy.

And I think they will.... Like the rest of us, the vast majority is sick of this nonsense.

'Fraid not, Bush's popularity has soared since the economy picked up. Looks like it will be in the future when America realises it's mistake.


On a personal not, it's 00:49 the night before my Irish Leaving Cert mock. I've been posting here the last few nights during the mocks. If I fail I'm blaming you guys :eek:

bonkey

Originally posted by chill
Few contributors ever accept criticism of Ireland or Europe.

Hahahahahahahahaha.

<deep breath>


HAHAHAHAHAAAAHAAAHAAAA.

<falls off chair>

Heeeheeeehohohohohoho.

Thats the funniest thing I've read all week.

jc

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Enda Hargaden
Right, I know this isn't your point but for future reference let's just ask who is more like Hitler, the inarticulate anti-conservationist who attacks countries, who (let's be honest) are backward and oppressive or the fanatic who hates a race who is willing to do just about anything to eliminate this race. And I mean eliminate on the scale of the Holocaust. Not invade and ask the Northern Guard to surrender before they have to shoot them. Now on to some more points.

Hitler in 1940 or 1945? The Hitler of 1940 wasn’t such a bad old guy in the eyes of the World after all. Even Gandhi defended him at that stage saying “I do not consider Hitler to be as bad as he is depicted. He is showing an ability that is amazing and seems to be gaining his victories without much bloodshed”. So who’s to say?

Bush is an oil-tycoon but Iraq's oil is not going anywhere, a Semi-State Body is being formed to look after it for them. A semi-state body, something which is contradictory to American Láissez-Faire policies; whether backing to pressure or not the Americans are making sure the oil is being well looked after. By Iraqis.

A Semi-State body run by Iraqi’s that is contracting/franchising everything out to private firms from which country for a song..?

Not much wrong with Saudi, they have some terrorists but so do Ireland. And with regard their governmental system, it's very good for the region. Afghanistan had a tyrannical rule which imposed Muslim rule and hated everything un-Muslim, for example, America. Afghanistan was far more of a paradise for Bin Laden than Saudi.

Some despotic regimes are good while others are bad? Is “very good for the region” code for “very good for the region for us?”

shotamoose

Originally posted by Enda Hargaden
'Fraid not, Bush's popularity has soared since the economy picked up.

Not even remotely true. Type 'Bush approval rating' into Google and you'll get shedloads of stories about how his approval rating is sliding. Like this one. The economy is only 'picking up' in terms of GDP - jobs growth has been almost non-existent.

bonkey

Originally posted by Rock Climber
[Devils advocate position]

But I thought all is fair in love and war

By that standard, nothing the terrorists are doing today, (or the Germans in WW2) is unfair or improper either.....

But that just doesn't seem to be the case......so I guess all isn't fair in love and war.

It doesn't make the method or the means necessarily right but it puts down a marker for where the boundaries lie.

Umm...no offence....but how do you consider taking my position as playing Devils Advocate?

I have never denied that Al Qaeda were a threat to be dealt with, nor that the situation in Iraq should not continue as it was.

What I have always objected to - and still criticise when I disagree with them - are the methods and means used.

Bush has every right to take a stance against terrorism....but I disagree with the manner in which this is being done. He has every right to try and make the world a safer place, but I disagree with the means by which he decided to pursue this goal.

In Gitmo, we saw people locked up, denied their rights. "But they're all clearly guilty" was the basic excuse offered both by the administration and the posters on this forum who supported the move. I haven't heard either of those groups explain how more of these "clearly guilty" people have been released having been found innocent than have been even brought to trial.

In Iraq, we were once again asked to take something on faith - that the US government had clear and incontrovertible evidence of WMDs. Evidence that, in retrospect, was most definitely not clear and incontrovertible.

So I agree completely. They have every right to draw a line in the sand, to put down their marker. Its still the means and the methods that I have a problem with.

Take a simple analagy....if I believe it is wrong for a parent to beat a child, does that mean that I oppose all forms of child discipline?

The "with us or against us" logic says yes, it does.

So you tell me....do you oppose the beating of children?

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Shanka
(which was planned well before 11th of September - in fact, just after bush came to office)

Umm...you've been reading Suskind's book, haven't you

I would say "which was allegedly planned...." would be a more accurate statement here.

jc