Bush is back!

Hi Paisano, I think a violent response might be appropriate when directed at the aggressor, though this is going very much to depend on circumstances. You think killing many times more innocent Iraqi civilians than those who died on Sep 11,2001 was laudable? But the Iraq war has been far worse than a non sequetur in the War on Nasty. It's increased Al-Quaida's rate of recruitment. You know who Bin Laden wants to be president, don't you? That sounds like a grumpy and pretty unhelpful generalisation.Cheers.

You think the endorsement of one of the world's most reviled current hate-figures might have been a point in Kerry's favour?added by edit: whoops. I rather missed the boat on that comment, seeing as about ten other people said it earlier.This message has been edited by Tusko, 11-04-2004 05:07 AM

I thought that fundamentalist Islam was pretty violently suppressed in Hussein's Iraq. I can't back that up straight away, but I would have thought that it was pretty self-evident that a dictator like Hussein doesn't want any kind of competition: especially from someone with even more impressive facial hair.

What do you think that Kerry lied about exactly? This question isn't intended to be viewed as snide or anything, I'm just interested in how you look at this situation.Personally, it seems to me that all politicians that we see on a world stage, and probably most of the local ones too, are generally deeply implicated in spin and misrepresentation to further their own interests. It often seems to be what politics is all about. If you think that Bush represents "truth", then that's very uncynical of you, and that's to be applauded in a way. However, that kind of way of looking at the world is dangerously close to naivety too, isn't it?Cheers

Well, US policy certainly has something to do with it, doesn't it? Your response almost seems to suggest that Bin Laden was prompted to act by specific Bush II policies. But as we all know, these attacks have been going on since Bush I and all the way through the Clinton years, so obviously the jihading fundamentalists' hostility is at more than just presidential style. You make it sounds as though Kerry would have embarked on some policy of appeasement, perhaps issuing apologies for the harsh treatment of the foreign nationals held at Guantanimo, then having Osama over to the Whitehouse for a chat and a nut roast. I don't think I'm saying anything very controversial if I suggest Kerry wouldn't have changed any of the policies that upset Bin Laden.By American policies, I assume Bin Laden was referring to really general things that American governments have been doing for decades, regardless of whether a Demoncrat or Replican is in office. You know, stuff like supporting undemocratic or repressive regimes and being nice to Israel. I'm not making any value judgement of American foreign policy here. I'm just a bit confused about what you said.1) Why else are Islamic fundamentalists pissed off with America if not American policies? Because American presidents love freedom and justice too much?2) Where are Kerry and Osama in agreement, other than they both publicly state Bush is a twunt?PS... apropo of nothing... I went to factcheck and saw what they had to say about the "Wolves" advert. It was so cunning! "The first attacks on american soil"... in 1993 or whatever. So clever.

Pot calling Kettle; come in Kettle.Its a bit futile bringing up Vietnam stuff when its Bush we're talking about, isn't it? Expecially when Kerry, by most accounts, handled himself fairly respectably.

So... did America desire freedom, and Iraq wish to take that freedom away? I guess this would work if Iraq has dangerous weapons that they were going to use on America imminently. If Iraq carried out this attack, then it would be taking away the freedom to live of many Americans. In pre-emptively resisting, America would be protecting its freedom. But of course, this isn't the case there weren't any weapons.Did the Iraqi population desire freedom, but the Iraqi government take it away - and the benevolent American military industrial complex helped the Iraqis to realise their dream? This kind of makes sense, but there are plenty of countries where the populations cry out for more autonomy, including states hostile to America like North Korea, and states friendly to America like Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan and Turkey. Why aren't we seeing more action in these places from the American military? Shouldn't they be keen to light the beacon of freedom WHEREVER there is the darkness of tyranny?
Additionally, there have been many thousands of Iraqi civilians who have has their freedom to live taken away by American munitions. Bummer for them, but maybe the Maths of Freedom says thats a necessary evil.No, wait - maybe I've got it. Maybe the ruthless dictator, Saddam Hussein, wanted the freedom to develop and use terrifying weapons that he would then use with impunity, and America wanted to take that freedom away. But that doesn't really seem to work either, because freedom is always a good thing.Personally I don't think freedom means very much at all, because it means very different things to different people. For some people it means the freedom to abort your unborn child. For others it gives you carte blanche to kill loads of adults and children. Go team!

Cheers for your reply. By the way, I was getting a bit excited yesterday; hope it wasn't percieved as rudeness. I'm just interested in your perspective on this.Clinton was militarily soft? This is actually news to me. The Shifa Pharmaceuticals plant was a bit harsh. Also, there was the small matter of the Balkan conflict. So I'd dispute the fact that Clinton WAS that soft. But maybe I'm ill informed. What were there other conflicts that he didn't get involved in that you think that he should have?But lets bring this up to date. You think that Kerry was going to return to Clinton's percieved "softness"? Its interesting. You think that Kerry was somehow back down in the War on TERROR(sorry, I really don't like that phrase)? I know this is pretty speculative, but what kinds of things do you think that he might have done? Personally, I don't think he would have been a million miles away from Bush, had he been elected.As for the radical Islamists, I agree that they are a trfle peeved that we aren't all in beards and burkahs. However, one of your paragraphs is packed with goodies, and I'd like to draw attention to it: Sure, America is the Great Satan; but if you look at the pretty horrible history of a country like Iran, which had a leader unceromoniously and undemocratically foisted on it because it was in the interests of the UK and USA, you can maybe understand their annoyance with the questionable rhetoric of "freedom". Same thing applies to Saudi. Islamic fundamentalists aren't the only ones who present things in ways that suit their own interests, as Colin Powell's scandalous presentation to the UN demonstrates. I think its a mistake to think they are jealous of you. They are repulsed by you (and me too!). They want power, but they don't want anything like what you have. We are utterly corrupt and undesirable. This is very true; but it cuts the other way too, doesn't it? I don't think Bush's popularity was hindered any by calling Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein naughty men.Does that make sense?PS Yeah, sorry about the random Wolves advert PS... didn't belong there.

This was the big speech:BBC NEWS | Middle East | Full text of Powell speech (pt I)Well, here's the "sort-of" admission after the event: BBC NEWS | Middle East | Powell admits Iraq evidence mistake I hope you are doing okay at the moment, best wishes.