Category: the Rant Board
Ok voting time. Read this site and type yes if you vote george bush is insane, a jerk, weird, stupid, criminal, or all of the above. If you like george bush, vote no. Fewll free to give reasons.
http://archive.democrats.com/preview.cfm?term=Bush%20Scandals
I can't be bothered to do that but I'll say this. I hear a lot more about Bush doing bad things than I do about the leaders of Iran, Zimbabwe, Sudan, China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc combined doing bad things. The people living under those regimes have it a lot worse than Americans do or Brits who hate Tony Blaire too. When are you bush bashers going to get a grip? or would you rather be ruled by tyrants like the ones in the country mentioned above.
A bit of a point to what ww has to say but not much. The reason America is better off than those countries so far has to do with wealth more than anything, the rest of the world is catching up but very slowly and it's not really the leaders fault, well, not always. And I think this is not true the attrocious situation in Simbabwe is widely reported yet, of course, since there is no oil interest Bush sees no problems with that approach and he supports the dictatorship in Pakistan whole heartedly since that fits his agenda. Free speech is very questionable concept in the States sadly, yes, much better of the most of the countries you mentioned but that still does not mean that things could not be improved here. The latest news is charges brought against Bush's ally and head of his fund raising campaign for fraud. I won't judge until the official verdict is out but I can't say I'd be surprised if fraud was proven.
cheers
-B
all I'm going to say, is I fucking hate gweorge w bush
all I'm going to say, is I fucking hate gweorge w bush
I don't think there's no country which couldn't be improved. However, to answer the point made by WB, Bush is still been criticised. the leaders of all the other countries I mentioned aren't receiving as much global criticism for the way they run their countries as he is, yet they are doing far worse things. How much criticism have you heard about the domestic policies of the leader of North Korea in the headline news in the last couple of months? Is it that he hasn't done anything bad over there? no, it's just that people and a lot of the media would rather criticise Bush instead.
Well, it is a point but the fact is that the U.S. claims to be the epidomy of honesty and democracy and the greatest country in the world and a shining example for other countries, if they are to follow up their claims they better clean up their act because we are seeing immense corruption and lies and political games being played by the current administration, none of the other countries have such claims and of course what happens in the U.S. affects the rest of the world a lot more directly than any evensts in the countries already mentioned, not unless it was an all out nuclear wwar or something to that effect. And, really, who is to say that the leadership of Iran or North Korea is any worse than that of the U.S. Iran e.g. has been harshly criticized, by the U.S. for holding political prisoners without a given reason or access to a judiciary system .. well two words for that "Guantanamo Bay", and I am not convinced that democracy is the prevailing and ultimate government, it may be and it works for me but it can also be manipulated and I think a lot of that goes on in the U.S. as well as many western countries. We all know about the Zimbabwe attrocities and that is horrendous to read about and the general problem of bribary in Africa and the associated corruption which, more than anything else, has kept that entire continent in the poor/developing world classification whilst countries in e.g. Asia have prop=spered even if the countries in Asia and Africa got independence at about the same time and have compatible resources and man power. WW makes a good point thouugh that Bush is being singled out but whilst the U.S. government makes such big statements and claims and want to abolish the U.N. altogether and become the world police such higher standards must be met and quite frankly I am not seeing any of that happpening right now.
cheers
-B
The US isn't the only country which is ruled by a government which thinks it should set an example to the world, Russia, China and Australia are just some examples. Because they though aren't covered so extensively by the media, it's less noticeable.
Hey... We vote the assholes into office who we complain about, so hush. It was the idiots who voted him in a second time that did it!
at least they got the chance, Saudi Arabians don't gget to choose their leaders, so if they think they're ruled by idiots, they can do fuck all about it.
I never voted for him. Bush is giving this country a very bad rap. Most people with intelligence did not vote for that meetball. Now Clinton and JFK, there are two good Presidents!
it's strange, i don't know any american that even voted for him. so, i chalenge anyone who voted in his favour to own up now!
and australia and england doesn't try to set an example for the rest of the world as much as the US does, we're not that stuck up.
Well Australia gets involved in domestic situations in countries a little closer to it, Fiji being one, and one group of islands which has had a regional civil war. Also, the UK gets involved in all sorts of things, we're more involved with the Iranian nuclear issue than America is. Both of these countries therefore, are trying to set an example to the world. Also, the UK has several colonies, and they can't choose how they'll run their affairs, they've got to abide by our standards, do what we say, conduct themselves in accordance with our example.
Wayne, that's not necessarily true, in australia, we don't necessarily have to follow your laws to the letter, in fact, we don't, and we don't follow your systems iether, we have better medicare systems and better social securety. so learn before you say things like that.
WW, show me examples of those countries claiming to be the 'defender of democracy and freedom and the greatest country in the world, for a start.
What other country has invaded another country (in the last 10 years) based on false alligations and killed over 30000 civilians.
When you tell me exactly which country has done that we can talk.
cheers
-B
Don't like Bush - don't like Blair either !!
Well the alegations made by Serbia against Cosovo weren't prooved, and also, anti-war people only focus on 1 of the reasons, weapons of massdistruction. Since they're obviously so intelligent, they'll all one after the other proove it by each listing one of the other reasons actually given by people from the Republican administration in March 2003. I'm confident they can't and I know why. The media hasn't concentrated on those reasons and I know why that is too. It's because those reasons aren't all as wrong. I'm also confident, that most of the anti-war people would be anti-war even if their were weapons of massdistruction in Iraq, so they're all liars when they concentrate so heavily on WMDs in their arguament. They can't rely on anything else. They can't try the many innocent civilians arguament, because well that's what happens in war and then they'd have to spend more time condemning Al-Qaeda and other terror groups who invaded Iraq after America and its allies did, and they'd rather condemn America.
Also, It's rediculous to suggest that it would be less wrong or less bad if America wasn't the worlds only superpower, the defender of Democracy and a great nation. Now on to the British colonies, Australia isn't a colony, we only share a head of state who is as powerful in the UK as she is in Australia (not very). However, the Isle Of Man, Channel Islands, Anguilla, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Pitkern Island, British Virgin Islands, etc are British colonies who do as we say or else. Now I may disagree with the way the war has been handled, and some of the hypocracy with regards the treatment of prisoners, however, I have more respect for free people who believe all people should be entitled to the level of freedom and justice they have, than those hypocrites who criticise those who defend freedom, while not doing anything at all, to help anyone else be as free as them. Those people don't deserve freedom, they deserve the tyranny that Al-qaeda would wish on them. They're quite happy to be free themselves, but they're also quite happy to sit back and do nothing while the women of Saudi Arabia have to have permission oto drive, while kids education gets disrupted because they were female kids and so their schools were burned in Afghanistan, while women can't get out of abusive marriages in Egypt. No, you'll all sit back and do nothing. However, when someone who calls for all regimes who encourage such cruelty to be overthrown, or tries to overthrow them, they're criticised. You can't win a war without having as much determination as the enemy, and you'll all find it out, if because of you, the Iraqis are abandoned, and we get another Afghanistan over there. In fact, if Bush and Blaire and Howard all did what you said, and didn't get involved in other countries, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, and we also just to be unhypocritical didn't sell arms to tyranical regimes, this is what could happen. The Muslim Brotherhood is big in most of these countries, Let's say that they were to somehow inspire the people of a few of these nations to overthrow their governments who had very little to defend themselves with because we didn't give them weapons. Then imagine, that they invaded a few places we also didn't provide arms to, so that all the places where they have support came under their umbrella as they would like. Then, let's imagine that they weren't happy because the West wouldn't buy their oil since you all usually have a problem with that too. Their people are starving because the west won't buy their oil. Then using Al-Qaedas dream of the restoration of the Islamic Empire as their excuse and a few lies, since only Bush and Blaire can't tell lies, they go and invade Spain. Then the EU gets sucked into a war with them. They'd be able to defend themselves better than they can now, with their suicide bombers, perhaps a bit of nuclear energy from Iran since that would be under their influence, and also Pakistan because that would be too, oh just imagine what they could do, and who's fault would it be, you and all the other equally naive people who said, stay out! because by staying out, we invite them in. When September 11 happened, had we invaded Iraq? Had we gone into Afghanistan? no! One final thing to point out here, we are now in Iraq under a UN mandate, so if you object to our presence, take it up with the UN which opposed us going in there but now wants us to stay. They're more hypocritical than some of these anti-war people, and I almost thought that wasn't possible. Only in the west, Only in the west does such a high degree of double-standards exist, but it wouldn't in the longterm if we all took up your attitude, Al-Qaeda or whichever extremist movement took over would make sure of that!
what country has the best medical care and help for the blind and freedom the us may not be such a good place to live
that's because the US isn't the best place to live, australia and new zealand are the most democratic countries i can think of.
Ww, spectacular <grin>.
Since when did the freedoms of women come into the whole story. Last time I checked Saudi Arabis has the full support of the U.S. and the gender inequality was, oddly enough, not one of the reasons Iraq was invaded. In fact by invading Iraq qand then inforcing western style democracy upon them the Islamists are gaining power and creating the ideal breading grounds for Al Qaeda and the aforementioned freedom of women has been severely reduced. The U.S. sees no problem with Saudi freedoms and lack thereof and, last time I checked, had no plans to invade that country.
I'd like to see "the other reasons" we invaded Iraq discussed, and you are saying that lying to the people is ok if it serves the ultimate good purpose. If that purpose is spreading our beliefs of democracy, how is that different from their beliefs wanting to spread their idiology around the world and you are saying it's ok to lie and sacrifice a few people in order to do so. The whole system we abide by is built on the respect for the self control and independence of nations and that it takes a great majority of countries with diverse backgrounds to recognize that the situation has become so bad that intervention is necessary. Instead the U.S. makes up its own mind regarding what countries are good or bad, which is exactly what we are trying to avoid and which is exactly what will encourage other countries to do the same, seeing as the U.S. is supposed to be the example of the "greatest country in the world".
So, post the "other reasons" Iraq was invaded and exlain plesae how invading Iraq solved those issues (let us not forget the looming cevil war that the invasion has created, the lawlessness and violence). And, Al Qaeda never invaded Iraq, foreign fighters may have come there as tourists but most of the attacks are carried out by Iraqis themselves, unhappy about foreign control (are you surprised) or by the religious upheaval that the invation created by upsetting the delicate balances in the country, and the image is not improved by torturing mostly innocent prisoners in Cuba and denying them access to any help or independent courts to resolve their legal issues.
Most importantly invations are supposed to be a last resort and make the world a better place, I absolutely fail to see how this invation was a success by any such measure.
cheers
-B
ok, i have nothing to say, you said it wb...cheers -gal