Supporting Bush is anti-American and anti-Western

I put this as a response but thought it might make a good topic.


Bush has done nothing to make the world safer. Any first year International Relations student could have seen that invading Iraq was as helpful as masturbating with a cheese grater.

Iraq was never a threat and now the world is getting steadily worse because of Bush’s shadow boxing with Saddam. Sorry but if it’s my personal safety on the line to “liberate” Iraqi people from an evil dictator, then I say fuck ‘em. “It’s a real shame you fellas have a US installed leftover Despot, but poking an Arab country is just gunna cause more shit.”

This is where the macho idiots usually step in with their, “We are the mighty America! We can fuck eeeeeveryone!” Well I’m sorry but your fantastically terrifying US Armed Forces are no good against suicide bombers. You’ve wasted a lot of time and cash on a super-high tech army and forgot about people-on-the-ground CIA nose work. Now its too late.

I’m not a pussy when it comes to religious fanatics, I fuckin’ hate religion in all its forms… BUT, if you’re going to fight against terror don’t use it as an excuse to invade a country to line your friends pockets and shell-up the family business!


[Edited on Mar 17, 2004 by gramsci]

Did you just call me "fantastically terrifying"?

That might be the best compliment I've had in ages.

Yeah, the US Army and Co are pretty damn incredible. But sometimes I disagree with the way politicians use them. Not always, but I don't buy into Bush's whole, "you're with us or your the enemy" bullshit. He's a puppet and a liar.

Keep up the good work!

Uh...you only seem to have one point to make (anti-Bush). Why don't you consolidate all your threads in one place?

Ummm, if you read the top of the first post you might just discover that's just what this thread is about...

I've got a few other points, its just today I'm down for my One Minute Hate Bush

I concur with Phoebus.



And if you saw the smiles on those Iraqi children's faces when were marched through first hand like we did, you'd whistle a different tune.

Gramsci, you seem to have a lot of anger at the Bush administration, but you're not putting across exactly what you're angry about very well at all. Bush is bad because he went to War with Iraq? Well, Clinton enforced the sanctions regime for eight years which was far more damaging, and he had access to the same information Bush had on WMDs -- the information that has now been proved unsupportive of the WMD claims.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Bush, but I think that judging politicians solely, or even principally, on foreign policy is to misjudge the actual control that national heads of state have over world affairs. The US is very influential in the world, yes -- but it does not control the world. Its foreign policy is still a deterministic reaction to events.

No, I oppose Bush because of his domestic policies. He is neither conservative nor liberal, but an examination of his politics and rhetoric leads one to the inexorable conclusion that he is a nationalist, that most dangerous of leanings. Nationalism is very often sold as patriotism, but it differs from patriotism in one key sense: it does not care about what the country is like when it is finished.

G K Chesterton said that "My country, right or wrong" -- the single line summation of Nationalism -- "is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.'" It is a nonsense and a charade. The USA PATRIOT act, CAAPS II, the pseudo-security of Sky Marshalls (and the continued neglect of invisible, boring, but effective security in airports), the stirring up of Anti-French sentiment, the blatant appeals to base religious feeling: all these things are the hallmarks of nationalism, and anathemas to the principles on which the USA was founded.

America has always had a strong sense of national pride. This great social strength which fortifies their national character, however, can be easily crystallised into something much more dangerous. The tragedy of 9/11 gave Bush and his NeoConservative advisors a wedge, stunning the sensible and steadfast American public. When it regained its balance, it found that Bush had already capitalised, cashing in on the tragedy for his own political gain, continually marketing the 9/11 "Brand" as a reason and justification for any and all actions he chose to make as president. It has taken a long time for the American public to see through the rhetoric.

Please note, I do not believe that John Kerry will be an angel sent from heaven to rescue America. I regard Kerry in much the same way as I regard Putin - a bastard, but possibly the right bastard for the time.

It is a shame that John Kerry, as dull and illiberal as he is, is the only alternative to George W. Bush, but in your constitutionally protected two-party system, that is the case. At least he's not a nationalist.

[Edited on Mar 17, 2004 by Neville]

Don't confuse them with first-hand factual reports.

I'm on a particularly anti-Bush rant mode today… I can assure you I could offer some very articulate treatises on the problems with modern international relations and current economic model... but this is a porn site and ranting is more fun

i was there, guy

Uh...I know, I got the drift of that. My comment was supportive of you and our troops. I hope you shoot better than you read.

I read it the same way he did.

Your meaning was not written clearly.

my bad, i read it as i was getting my info from news reports and not first hand, ie, me being there.


sorry bro

Just out of curiosity, what did you think I was trying to say? I looked back and I still only see one meaning, ironic as it may be.

Hey, no problem. You have my admiration.

(Insert saluting smiley here.)

oh and im not very observant either, i thought you were the other guy.


I prostrate myself to you, and ask for forgiveness

Well that's just it.. at first I read it and thought you meant that first-hand reports were better than what Dan had, and then I thought WAIT.. Dan said "as we marched in". How could you not have caught that?

Then I read it again and thought.. were you supporting Dan" hmm.. no because you said

"Don't confuse them with first-hand factual reports."

the grammar of using the imperative is the implyed YOU... so you were telling Dan not confuse them (the children?) with first-hand factual reports. That didn't make any sense either.

I couldn't figure out what the pronoun "them" was referring to.. and why you were instructing Dan not confuse his first hand experience with "first-hand factual reports".

So when Dan responded... and you inturn said it was his reading.. well I had to put my 2 cents in because quite frankly what you wrote wasn't that clear.

Well, Dan already prostrated himself to me. Any chance I might convince you to do the same? No offense to Dan, but you're much more my type.

not a chance - not my style

after all I would agree with you if you were right

I am always right, my dear...even when I'm wrong.

OMG what a coincidence......... me too!

I'm never wrong.

Ahh, Fuck them, they will hate us in about two years if they don't already. Why dont you try parading through the American streets with free health care and see how many smiling faces you encounter. (I was in the Army the first time around)

Anti-Western? Dad-gummit, you polecat!

yes, iraqi children love a parade as much as anyone... i also saw adults slit their throats with fingers, and then point at me...
not trying to make too much of a point here except i know that encounters on the street with iraqis are very complicated. some people have been so conditioned by saddam's demonstrations that they know the proper responce to a military presence is to smile and give the old thumbs up... others are probably genuinly happy..... others had the same smiles on their faces while they waved their shoes at me (very bad arab gesture).