And I'm rather in agreement with the observation that the potential for fascism has been growing in the USA (in my opinion for some ten years and more), just as it has been in every other democratic country.
The reason seems to be that the good lessons learnt during the earlier post-war decades are being forgotten and despised by now, if you ask me.
I've particularly felt it recently, on the streets of several Western countries when given leaflets of ?alternative? movements, or during mass demonstrations, where such potential is just as virulent as in the silent corridors of power in Washington.
[But I'd take it any day over actual forms of fascism as they exist in several countries today]
Lets keep the discussion on topic. I did not ask who thought the US was Fascist or pure as the driven snow. I asked who thought still that Bush was worse than Saddam, or at least as bad as Saddam.
What I have heard that is on topic was that, give we have a massive military and a great stockpile of weapons at our disposal that we are the biggest threat to the world. IF that is the best argument you have then I feel the argument is impotent.
You have answered my question beautifully I believe. Level the playing field, put Bush and his men on one side and Saddam and his men on the other. Which one will you root for? Lets say that, For the sake of simplification, they all are wearing sidearms and nothing more. They also both have chemical weapons at their disposal. Which one would be the most likely to use the chemical weapons? Bush or Saddam? Think in terms of history here folks. The answer is clear.
Which one would be more likely to order the torture of their captured enemies and "medical testing" of thier arsenal of chemical weapons on their prisoners.
I don't care if we have the biggest stick on the block. That just means we are more able to back up our position when push comes to shove. We would not be in a position of invading Iraq in the first place if Saddam had done what he was ordered to do and agreed to do after GW1. The war that he started by invading a sovereign neighbor nation. The war that he used chemical weapons in. The war that he was humiliated in by the "evil US".
Is this the man you say is not a threat to world peace? If he were not ruling do you seriously believe Iraq would be a target right now? The logic comes around to, Saddam is the cause for the unrest, we are simply removing that cause. Some do not like it and that is there right. But to compare the two is intellectually dishonest.
"I don't care if we have the biggest stick on the block. That just means we are more able to back up our position when push comes to shove."
That's why Bush is a bigger threat to world peace.
Were we to put Saddam & Bush on equal footing (large stockpiles of nuclear weapons) the world would probably already have been obliterated. As it stands, if I had to choose between a war to oust Saddam or a new election to get rid of Bush, I'd choose a new election over war any day of the week.
That's why Bush is a bigger threat to world peace.
Were we to put Saddam & Bush on equal footing (large stockpiles of nuclear weapons) the world would probably already have been obliterated. As it stands, if I had to choose between a war to oust Saddam or a new election to get rid of Bush, I'd choose a new election over war any day of the week.
The question is, who would pull the trigger first?
Also, if there were an election, who would be put in his place? I bet he would win by an even larger margin and you would be highly dissapointed.
Yes, Saddam would, and I doubt he would seek UN approval to do so, whether he followed it or not. Our presence there is now in response to the past 12 years. How many nukes and chemical weapons have we fired in the whole history of conflict with Saddam?
The question is, who would pull the trigger first?
My statement was more ambiguous than intended. What I meant was, if Bush & Saddam were on equal military footing, Saddam would have used WOMD long ago. Probably not on the U.S. though. Saddam is a much bigger sicko.
But Bush, with his big stick, is far more dangerous. He's showing his willingness to use the stick too, and a lot of people (myself included) think his reasoning is unsound. Put that unsound reasoning to the test with other 'rogue' nations around the globe and we'll probably find out how dangerous Bush really is. It may be nothing, it may be something.
So I'll reiterate the fact that basically no one thinks Saddam is a good guy, and relatively speaking, Bush is scum. Everyone knows Saddam is scum of the highest order. That doesn't give Bush free reign to be sick in the head though.
My statement was more ambiguous than intended. What I meant was, if Bush & Saddam were on equal military footing, Saddam would have used WOMD long ago. Probably not on the U.S. though. Saddam is a much bigger sicko.
But Bush, with his big stick, is far more dangerous. He's showing his willingness to use the stick too, and a lot of people (myself included) think his reasoning is unsound. Put that unsound reasoning to the test with other 'rogue' nations around the globe and we'll probably find out how dangerous Bush really is. It may be nothing, it may be something.
So I'll reiterate the fact that basically no one thinks Saddam is a good guy, and relatively speaking, Bush is scum. Everyone knows Saddam is scum of the highest order. That doesn't give Bush free reign to be sick in the head though.
So your answer to my question that you are skirting is that Bush is not as bad as Saddam on any level. However you fully disagree with him and believe that he is dangerous because of his religious and political beliefs. Is this right?
It is unrealistic to compare Bush to Saddam, purely as enemies. We should not ignore the period when Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, and the United States, were allies. Many in the current Bush Administration were in positions of power during the era of US-Iraq "friendship".
We mustn't forget that during that period when the US and Iraq was allied, Iraq was at it's most heavily armed, used chemical weapons in their war with Iran (and NOT against the Kurds, btw, that is BS) using US intelligence to do so, and Saddam was the same man, but even more of a tyrant than he is now.
So as not to be labeled partisan, this period, 1978 covered both Democratic and Republican administrations, two years of Carter, eight years of Reagan and two years of Bush Sr. Bush Jr. is cut from the same cloth as his father and Reagan.
Here's one of the "if's of history, but an obvious and logical conclusion": If Iraq hadn't invaded Kuwait in 1990, the Gulf War obviously wouldn't have happened, neither would the subsequent UN resolutions, no fly zones, weapons inspections, and vilifications of the Hussein. Iraq would have their army of similar strength as it was pre Gulf war, maybe even larger, none of their WMD stocks would have been examined and destroyed, and Saddam Hussein would still be exercising his brute force over the Iraqi people.
I would hazard a guess that the US would still be Iraq's ally, if the Gulf War hadn't happened. The US approved/condoned/aided and financed Saddam Hussein up until 1990 for some 12 years. Another 12 years of the same, provided Saddam Hussein remained on the side of the US, would be most probable. We are absolutely and perfectly fine and dandy with brutal dictators, provided they are our dictators, and they provide for the bottom line of US corporations. And since the US propped up a host of the world's nastiest people in numerous nations since WW2, for Saddam Hussein to overstep his US approved bailiwick was the dumbest move, re. his own career, that he could ever have made.
Yes, Saddam is evil. I don't think Bush is, personally, but he is supported by evil persons (but more refined and subtle than Saddam). Saddam and Bush are of the same family mold, and are now involved in a deep and irreparable feud because Saddam overstepped his mark.
So your answer to my question that you are skirting is that Bush is not as bad as Saddam on any level. However you fully disagree with him and believe that he is dangerous because of his religious and political beliefs. Is this right?
Sorry, I'm not skirting anything. When I saw your response to my original post I realized that what I wrote could be read in more ways than one so I clarified.
I'll try and put it this way. A ten year old with a gun is more dangerous than a mass murderer with a pencil. I believe Bush with his head-strong naivete is more dangerous because of the arsenal that backs him up.
I'm not sure why you're bringing his religious beliefs into the conversation.
Sorry, I'm not skirting anything. When I saw your response to my original post I realized that what I wrote could be read in more ways than one so I clarified.
I'll try and put it this way. A ten year old with a gun is more dangerous than a mass murderer with a pencil. I believe Bush with his head-strong naivete is more dangerous because of the arsenal that backs him up.
I'm not sure why you're bringing his religious beliefs into the conversation.
You cannot see why I would bring up his religious beliefs? Truly?
You state:
So I'll reiterate the fact that basically no one thinks Saddam is a good guy, and relatively speaking, Bush is scum. Everyone knows Saddam is scum of the highest order. That doesn't give Bush free reign to be sick in the head though.
And what makes him sick in the head. Maybe you have different reasoning than most others I have read who seem to feel that his religious convictions are what are at fault here. If so, then I will withdraw that part of my question.
I am happy that you clarified as the response was closer to the point.
However, a child with a pistol would not know how to use it properly and would be a wildcard, not a direct threat. A more close analogy is a police officer with a pistol. How much of a threat to you is that police officer? Are you scared everytime one comes into the room? Then look at that mass murderer with the pencil. A mass murderer with a pencil would be a threat.
You cannot see why I would bring up his religious beliefs? Truly? ... And what makes him sick in the head.
...
A more close analogy is a police officer with a pistol.
I'm not going to deny that I don't like how apparently his religious beliefs interfere with his job, but that's not what I was referring to.
He's pig-headed, arrogant and self-righteous. Combine that with his apparent belief that America can do no wrong and I think he's twisted. He should have stayed as a governor because Internation Politics are probably his biggest weak point. He has a desire to increase free trade at the expense of democracy and that's dangerous. They're not in any way synonomous.
As for the pistol example, it wasn't perfect, and your examples actually better explain my point. From 20 feet away, a dirty cop could kill me in two seconds flat. From 10 feet away, a maniac with a pencil could do me no harm. From 20 feet away that cop might be a wildcard, but Bush has shown evidence that he is not to be trusted even from '20 feet' away.
And yes, I 'fear' cops. That is to say I've seen them do some nasty things in person and I have a pretty good grasp of the fact that it's nearly impossible to hold them accountable.
I'm not going to deny that I don't like how apparently his religious beliefs interfere with his job, but that's not what I was referring to.
He's pig-headed, arrogant and self-righteous. Combine that with his apparent belief that America can do no wrong and I think he's twisted. He should have stayed as a governor because Internation Politics are probably his biggest weak point. He has a desire to increase free trade at the expense of democracy and that's dangerous. They're not in any way synonomous.
As for the pistol example, it wasn't perfect, and your examples actually better explain my point. From 20 feet away, a dirty cop could kill me in two seconds flat. From 10 feet away, a maniac with a pencil could do me no harm. From 20 feet away that cop might be a wildcard, but Bush has shown evidence that he is not to be trusted even from '20 feet' away.
And yes, I 'fear' cops. That is to say I've seen them do some nasty things in person and I have a pretty good grasp of the fact that it's nearly impossible to hold them accountable.
Really, a cop scares you more than a mass murderer? Says a lot about a problem with authority it seems. One cop does a nasty thing and now all cops are bad? Is it that easy to be pegged as a wildcard for you? Lets take it a step further. All Cops are humans. Humans are wildcards. Run for your life!
Comments
And I'm rather in agreement with the observation that the potential for fascism has been growing in the USA (in my opinion for some ten years and more), just as it has been in every other democratic country.
The reason seems to be that the good lessons learnt during the earlier post-war decades are being forgotten and despised by now, if you ask me.
I've particularly felt it recently, on the streets of several Western countries when given leaflets of ?alternative? movements, or during mass demonstrations, where such potential is just as virulent as in the silent corridors of power in Washington.
[But I'd take it any day over actual forms of fascism as they exist in several countries today]
What I have heard that is on topic was that, give we have a massive military and a great stockpile of weapons at our disposal that we are the biggest threat to the world. IF that is the best argument you have then I feel the argument is impotent.
You have answered my question beautifully I believe. Level the playing field, put Bush and his men on one side and Saddam and his men on the other. Which one will you root for? Lets say that, For the sake of simplification, they all are wearing sidearms and nothing more. They also both have chemical weapons at their disposal. Which one would be the most likely to use the chemical weapons? Bush or Saddam? Think in terms of history here folks. The answer is clear.
Which one would be more likely to order the torture of their captured enemies and "medical testing" of thier arsenal of chemical weapons on their prisoners.
I don't care if we have the biggest stick on the block. That just means we are more able to back up our position when push comes to shove. We would not be in a position of invading Iraq in the first place if Saddam had done what he was ordered to do and agreed to do after GW1. The war that he started by invading a sovereign neighbor nation. The war that he used chemical weapons in. The war that he was humiliated in by the "evil US".
Is this the man you say is not a threat to world peace? If he were not ruling do you seriously believe Iraq would be a target right now? The logic comes around to, Saddam is the cause for the unrest, we are simply removing that cause. Some do not like it and that is there right. But to compare the two is intellectually dishonest.
That's why Bush is a bigger threat to world peace.
Were we to put Saddam & Bush on equal footing (large stockpiles of nuclear weapons) the world would probably already have been obliterated. As it stands, if I had to choose between a war to oust Saddam or a new election to get rid of Bush, I'd choose a new election over war any day of the week.
Originally posted by bunge
That's why Bush is a bigger threat to world peace.
Were we to put Saddam & Bush on equal footing (large stockpiles of nuclear weapons) the world would probably already have been obliterated. As it stands, if I had to choose between a war to oust Saddam or a new election to get rid of Bush, I'd choose a new election over war any day of the week.
The question is, who would pull the trigger first?
Also, if there were an election, who would be put in his place? I bet he would win by an even larger margin and you would be highly dissapointed.
The question is, who would pull the trigger first?
Um, Doh! The answer to that has already happened.
Originally posted by sammi jo
Um, Doh! The answer to that has already happened.
Yes, Saddam would, and I doubt he would seek UN approval to do so, whether he followed it or not. Our presence there is now in response to the past 12 years. How many nukes and chemical weapons have we fired in the whole history of conflict with Saddam?
Originally posted by NoahJ
The question is, who would pull the trigger first?
My statement was more ambiguous than intended. What I meant was, if Bush & Saddam were on equal military footing, Saddam would have used WOMD long ago. Probably not on the U.S. though. Saddam is a much bigger sicko.
But Bush, with his big stick, is far more dangerous. He's showing his willingness to use the stick too, and a lot of people (myself included) think his reasoning is unsound. Put that unsound reasoning to the test with other 'rogue' nations around the globe and we'll probably find out how dangerous Bush really is. It may be nothing, it may be something.
So I'll reiterate the fact that basically no one thinks Saddam is a good guy, and relatively speaking, Bush is scum. Everyone knows Saddam is scum of the highest order. That doesn't give Bush free reign to be sick in the head though.
Originally posted by bunge
My statement was more ambiguous than intended. What I meant was, if Bush & Saddam were on equal military footing, Saddam would have used WOMD long ago. Probably not on the U.S. though. Saddam is a much bigger sicko.
But Bush, with his big stick, is far more dangerous. He's showing his willingness to use the stick too, and a lot of people (myself included) think his reasoning is unsound. Put that unsound reasoning to the test with other 'rogue' nations around the globe and we'll probably find out how dangerous Bush really is. It may be nothing, it may be something.
So I'll reiterate the fact that basically no one thinks Saddam is a good guy, and relatively speaking, Bush is scum. Everyone knows Saddam is scum of the highest order. That doesn't give Bush free reign to be sick in the head though.
So your answer to my question that you are skirting is that Bush is not as bad as Saddam on any level. However you fully disagree with him and believe that he is dangerous because of his religious and political beliefs. Is this right?
We mustn't forget that during that period when the US and Iraq was allied, Iraq was at it's most heavily armed, used chemical weapons in their war with Iran (and NOT against the Kurds, btw, that is BS) using US intelligence to do so, and Saddam was the same man, but even more of a tyrant than he is now.
So as not to be labeled partisan, this period, 1978 covered both Democratic and Republican administrations, two years of Carter, eight years of Reagan and two years of Bush Sr. Bush Jr. is cut from the same cloth as his father and Reagan.
Here's one of the "if's of history, but an obvious and logical conclusion": If Iraq hadn't invaded Kuwait in 1990, the Gulf War obviously wouldn't have happened, neither would the subsequent UN resolutions, no fly zones, weapons inspections, and vilifications of the Hussein. Iraq would have their army of similar strength as it was pre Gulf war, maybe even larger, none of their WMD stocks would have been examined and destroyed, and Saddam Hussein would still be exercising his brute force over the Iraqi people.
I would hazard a guess that the US would still be Iraq's ally, if the Gulf War hadn't happened. The US approved/condoned/aided and financed Saddam Hussein up until 1990 for some 12 years. Another 12 years of the same, provided Saddam Hussein remained on the side of the US, would be most probable. We are absolutely and perfectly fine and dandy with brutal dictators, provided they are our dictators, and they provide for the bottom line of US corporations. And since the US propped up a host of the world's nastiest people in numerous nations since WW2, for Saddam Hussein to overstep his US approved bailiwick was the dumbest move, re. his own career, that he could ever have made.
Yes, Saddam is evil. I don't think Bush is, personally, but he is supported by evil persons (but more refined and subtle than Saddam). Saddam and Bush are of the same family mold, and are now involved in a deep and irreparable feud because Saddam overstepped his mark.
Originally posted by NoahJ
So your answer to my question that you are skirting is that Bush is not as bad as Saddam on any level. However you fully disagree with him and believe that he is dangerous because of his religious and political beliefs. Is this right?
Sorry, I'm not skirting anything. When I saw your response to my original post I realized that what I wrote could be read in more ways than one so I clarified.
I'll try and put it this way. A ten year old with a gun is more dangerous than a mass murderer with a pencil. I believe Bush with his head-strong naivete is more dangerous because of the arsenal that backs him up.
I'm not sure why you're bringing his religious beliefs into the conversation.
Originally posted by bunge
Sorry, I'm not skirting anything. When I saw your response to my original post I realized that what I wrote could be read in more ways than one so I clarified.
I'll try and put it this way. A ten year old with a gun is more dangerous than a mass murderer with a pencil. I believe Bush with his head-strong naivete is more dangerous because of the arsenal that backs him up.
I'm not sure why you're bringing his religious beliefs into the conversation.
You cannot see why I would bring up his religious beliefs? Truly?
You state:
So I'll reiterate the fact that basically no one thinks Saddam is a good guy, and relatively speaking, Bush is scum. Everyone knows Saddam is scum of the highest order. That doesn't give Bush free reign to be sick in the head though.
And what makes him sick in the head. Maybe you have different reasoning than most others I have read who seem to feel that his religious convictions are what are at fault here. If so, then I will withdraw that part of my question.
I am happy that you clarified as the response was closer to the point.
However, a child with a pistol would not know how to use it properly and would be a wildcard, not a direct threat. A more close analogy is a police officer with a pistol. How much of a threat to you is that police officer? Are you scared everytime one comes into the room? Then look at that mass murderer with the pencil. A mass murderer with a pencil would be a threat.
Originally posted by NoahJ
You cannot see why I would bring up his religious beliefs? Truly? ... And what makes him sick in the head.
...
A more close analogy is a police officer with a pistol.
I'm not going to deny that I don't like how apparently his religious beliefs interfere with his job, but that's not what I was referring to.
He's pig-headed, arrogant and self-righteous. Combine that with his apparent belief that America can do no wrong and I think he's twisted. He should have stayed as a governor because Internation Politics are probably his biggest weak point. He has a desire to increase free trade at the expense of democracy and that's dangerous. They're not in any way synonomous.
As for the pistol example, it wasn't perfect, and your examples actually better explain my point. From 20 feet away, a dirty cop could kill me in two seconds flat. From 10 feet away, a maniac with a pencil could do me no harm. From 20 feet away that cop might be a wildcard, but Bush has shown evidence that he is not to be trusted even from '20 feet' away.
And yes, I 'fear' cops. That is to say I've seen them do some nasty things in person and I have a pretty good grasp of the fact that it's nearly impossible to hold them accountable.
The first I expect are starting a regional war in the middle east.
Grabbing oil from protected Arctic region
Originally posted by bunge
I'm not going to deny that I don't like how apparently his religious beliefs interfere with his job, but that's not what I was referring to.
He's pig-headed, arrogant and self-righteous. Combine that with his apparent belief that America can do no wrong and I think he's twisted. He should have stayed as a governor because Internation Politics are probably his biggest weak point. He has a desire to increase free trade at the expense of democracy and that's dangerous. They're not in any way synonomous.
As for the pistol example, it wasn't perfect, and your examples actually better explain my point. From 20 feet away, a dirty cop could kill me in two seconds flat. From 10 feet away, a maniac with a pencil could do me no harm. From 20 feet away that cop might be a wildcard, but Bush has shown evidence that he is not to be trusted even from '20 feet' away.
And yes, I 'fear' cops. That is to say I've seen them do some nasty things in person and I have a pretty good grasp of the fact that it's nearly impossible to hold them accountable.
Really, a cop scares you more than a mass murderer? Says a lot about a problem with authority it seems. One cop does a nasty thing and now all cops are bad? Is it that easy to be pegged as a wildcard for you? Lets take it a step further. All Cops are humans. Humans are wildcards. Run for your life!