MapleBear

Are you saying Canadians should just surrender to Bush? 1. six 2. four 3. Point? I have a better idea - explain why you can't understand it. Are you suggesting that invading Canada would NOT be stupid? Do you think it would be SMART to invade Canada - at the very time we're bogged down in Iraq? Would you like to see Bush invade Canada? Nor are Canadians beaten down the way Iraq was before we invaded. Canada has a modern military; they sent troops to Afghanistan, remember? To Hell with what the average Canadian has access to; their government can arm them. And how many U.S. citizens would flock across the border to help them - or help them from the U.S. side of the border? You sound like Donald Rumsfeld; I bet you would expect Canadians to greet invading U.S. troops with flowers. Like I said, evil doesn't necessarily equate to stupidity. If a poll revealed that 50 million Americans would rise up in arms in response to an invasion of Canada, Bush would not be inclined to invade Canada - unless he's even more stupid than I imagine. I'm sure he would; but it isn't a scenario he would welcome - for obvious reasons. Huh???

One of the problems with the arguments people I assume are conservative are using against my original post is that they're too damned liberal - as in wishy-wish or flip flop liberal. The situation reeks of irony. If I understand it correctly, you either don't believe in evil, or you don't think it can be measured - even in rough terms. Evil is such an elusive concept, we shouldn't even mention it in serious conversations. It's just too "subjective." So what about the concept of "bad," which most people would perceive as a lesser evil? What about "good"? I can only assume you feel the same about them. And wouldn't "corrupt" and "stupid" fit into the same general category??? So imagine you're talking to a group of children about politics, and they ask you about comparisons between George W. Bush and Adolph Hitler. Which of the following are you going to tell them?: 1) Boys and girls, neither Bush nor Hitler were evil, because evil doesn't exist. Hitler was no worse than your next door neighbor. 2) Bush couldn't possibly be as evil as Hitler. After all, Hitler killed millions of people, while Bush has only killed thousands, and we all know that evil is measured by military might, not a person's heart. 3) George W. Bush and Adolph Hitler aren't evil, a term that's subjective. Therefore, they can't even be considered bad. So the next time you read about some despot who has murdered 10,000 or 10 million people, just remember, he isn't really bad. 4) Hitler was indeed evil - far more evil than George W. Bush. After all, Bush didn't even invade Canada during his first term.

Aside from a little name calling, do you think Canada has had much influence on Bush? Once again, you're confusing intelligence with stupidity. Using your logic, Adolph Hitler should have invaded Poland when he was 18. But Hitler wasn't stupid; he waited until he was a government official and had a military at his disposal. Bush has a military at his disposal, but invading Canada now would still be stupid. You're dreaming. Canada has a large population capable of waging guerilla warfare over a vast area, much of it wilderness. Moreover, if you think there are a lot of Americans who don't support the illegal invasion of Iraq, just imagine how they'd feel if we invaded Canada. Bush could wind up with a civil war on his hands. Even I don't credit Bush with that kind of stupidity. That's too lame to even qualify as propaganda. It's simply an insult - a very lame one at that.

Bush doesn't need to invade Canada as long as he can pressure its government to generally support him - or at least nor make too much trouble. As for the rest, he may well be working on it. Who knows? Remember, Hitler didn't rise to power overnight.

Agreed. Not agreed. Yes, big conspiracies are presumably harder to keep quiet than small conspiracies, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. I used to believe as you do - until I started investigating the "Seattle Mafia" and later corruption on the national and interntional level. Remember - Just one person revealed the Pentagon Papers - and he nearly went to prison for it. How many people broke the Watergate story? As I recall, the identity of "Deepthroat" is still unknown. What do we know about the 9/11 terrorist attacks? Not much. How many people are speaking out against some of the extraordinary scandals in public education, scandals that are eerily similar across America and even in other nations? Even Ralph Nader imitates Democrats in simply begging for more money without accountability. Consider just one public school district - Seattle. Several years ago, the business community recruited a retired general and friend of Colin Powell to serve as superintendent, but more precisely to help them achieve a corporate takeover. Stanford's corruption and megalomania were astounding - and obvious. He wrecked entire schools and even exploited the city's students in an extraordinary public blackmail attempt. The Seattle School District employes nearly 5,000 educators and serves nearly 50,000 students. So how many teachers and parents publicly spoke out against John Stanford with any gusto? Basically, just one. You can see my website at www.johnstanford.org And who besides me has exposed Geov Parrish, a nationally syndicated left-wing columnist? I'm aware of no one.

OK - WE won, or THEY won; same thing. I never declared anyone the winner. You're trying to split hairs that are far too fine. I think most people would put Pol Pot, Hussein and Manson in the same general category. The question is this: Is it fair to put George W. Bush in this same category, or to suggest that he may be "evil" enough to one day be included in this category? Or, as right-wingers suggest, is it absurd to imagine that Bush could be that evil? Yes, my question is in the eye of the beholder, but there are many millions of beholders, many who bear the scars of evil. People who have lost arms, legs, homes or loved ones to people like George Bush and Pol Pot cannot are not usually interested in philosophical games. My question is not meaningless to them. On the contrary, it demonstrates the power of propaganda and the necessity of countering it. If Bush is going to claim to be a Christian, his enemies should trumpet the Hitler comparison louder than before. Let's go back to square one. I asked my original question in response to the right-wingers who claim it's absurd or obscene to compare George W. Bush to Adolph Hitler. They don't make this claim because the comparison is "subjective." They unanimously abhor Adolph Hitler, but they adore George W. Bush. The Christian right believes very strongly in good and evil, and they regard Bush as good. So if we concluded that Bush is evil, it would give us a powerful weapon to counter right-wing propaganda; i.e. truth. What's the point? Though I'm not philosophically opposed to violence, I have enough common sense to realize that it would be futile at this point. Why resort to violence when U.S. voters aren't even taking advantage of what's left of their democracy? As far as that goes, I think the international communitiy should also hang its head in shame. Adolph Hitler taught us the folly of appeasement. Yet what have world leaders done but appease Bush? They should have publicly branded him a moron and compared him to Adolph Hitler. They should have threatened a variety of retaliations if he was re-elected. Of course, there is a theory that some nations like George W. Bush because he's the best tool for accomplishing their ultimate goal - the destruction of America. Nothing evil about that, eh?

The Republicans control Congress, the Supreme Court and, apparently, the CIA. Corporations control the media - including most of the so-called liberal media. The Republicans have voting machines in their corner. Have you heard of "redistricting"? The only party that can challenge the Republicans is the Democratic Party, which is also corrupt. Look at the lame campaigns ran by Al Gore and John Kerry, both of whom may have very well been working for the Republicans. One of the classiest Democrats was Paul Wellstone, and look what happened to him. Frankly, I don't think the Republicans have to worry about elections ever again. Elections are now nothing more than a formality, similar to those fur hats British royal guards wear.

Corrupt in that they aren't what they say they are. Thus, they're in a position to disinform people, waste their time and energy, even report them to Homeland Security. Of course, this is the kind of observation that prompts many right-wingers to cry "conspiracy theory!" Of course, it IS a conspiracy theory, but there's no need for quotes. Let's apply a little logic. George W. Bush and the corporations that support him are in control of the most powerful propaganda machine in world history. So what's their favorite mouthpiece - Fox News? Rush Limbaugh? Think about it - only the most brain-dead right-wingers listen to Fox News and Limbaugh. Thus, George Bush, Inc. need less obvious right-wing media, like the Washington Post and the Seattle Times. But more intelligent people can easily see the corruption in these papers, too. But what if corporate America controlled LIBERAL media - or media that pretend to be liberal? What if Common Dreams, CounterPunch and the Seattle Weekly were actually working for Republicans, or, more precisely, for corporations? To dupe more intelligent readers, they would have to print some truthful articles, and they'd have to attack the very people they're working for - but they do it in a very clever manner. In particular, the only "activists" they mention are their own - people who aren't really activists. Run for public office on a reform platform, and you don't even exist. As for not promoting violence, that's another clue that they're corrupt. Not that they should urge readers to start a civil war, but they go overboard in preaching non-violence. Some of these groups spend so much time preaching the gospel of non-violence, it's a wonder they find time to teach anything else. What's really disgusting is their gospel of civility - they urge readers to be polite at all times. Their harshest stance is "Impeach Bush," when it should be "Jail for Bush" or worse. (See my website, which the media have completely ignored.) In order to reign in still more intelligent liberals and independents, some of these tabloids do indeed call Bush names, breaking their own doctrine of civility. But their patriotism is still a mile wide and an inch deep.

Now there's a cheap propagand technique - claiming victory. I crave SUFFICIENT answers. If the truth is complex, so be it. But I don't go in search of a philosophical romp through the wilderness if the answer is right under my nose. Actually, good and evil do exist, whether you perceive them or not. The problem is that Bush has the titles mixed up. Just as you claim victory on this thread, Bush claims he's one of the good guys. Likewise, the American sheeple are correct in speaking out vigorously against evil. Again, the problem is that many are just too stupid to distinguish good from evil. Thus, right-wingers perceive George W. Bush as a Christian (so was Adolph Hitler), while many liberals can't see the demons in their own ranks. I'm not sure what "bianary thinking" is. Sounds like more FUD to me.

1. I think "wicked" has pretty much the same meaing as "evil." 2. Bush's destructiveness is very obvious. Just look at how he's trashed Afghanistan and Iraq - or the United States. 3. Bad is a tough one. I would consider it a combination of evil and destructiveness - or capability of destructiveness. A bad or evil person in command of nuclear weapons is a lot "badder" than a bad person in command of a box of rotten tomatoes. 4. Is George W. Bush a stupid prick? Ha! The answer's obviously yes, though the philosophers on this forum would ask, "What does stupid mean? What's a prick? Do I exist? And where's my pencili?!"

I'm perfectly aware that this forum is Canadian; that's why it interested me at first; I thought it might be a little better than most American forums - assuming it isn't an "operative" or hasn't been taken over by conservatives. But U.S. politics is a big topic on this forum, and there are obviously Americans who post here. Moreover, I posted this particular thread in the international section, so I don't know what you're complaining about. National sovereignty. The right to control their natural resources (particularly oil). The right to go to bed knowing their homes won't be blown up in the middle of the night. That's the icing on the cake. Supporting Iraqi patriots is self-centered???

Tawasakm wrote: Old can be an advantage. The Lancet is an old organization that is well respected. IraqBodyCount is relatively new and should be scrutinized. How do you know it isn't American? Iraq's puppet government isn't American, either. My websites aren't hosted in America. If it really is based in London, so what? Is the United Kingdom free of corruption and propaganda? I did a cursory survey that raised a few flags. They linked to Common Dreams and some other progressive site I don't trust. Common Dreams often features articles by Geov Parrish, a Seattle columnist who's effectively a corporate operative. Are the folks at Common Dreams also corrupt, or are they just clueless? Does it make much difference? I also saw a link to a "Stop the War Coalition." We have organizations with similar names here in Seattle. They're corrupt. Here's how it works: The White House knows that if they don't do a body count, someone else will do it for them. So if an organization like the Lancet reports 100,000 civilian casualties, how are you going to refute them if you haven't done a body count? The solution is to create your own organization, and make it sound official. You might even add a few features to make it sound LIBERAL. Then use your operative to tell the public that no more than 16,000 Iraqi civlians have been killed. Similar tactics are widely used across the United States - there are phony alternative media, phony activist groups and phony political forums.

This really says it all. Who needs nuance and rationality when we can have hysterical hyperbole! That's exciting! Who needs a solid debate when people can just hide behind words like "nuance" and "subjective"? Gee, do you think terrorists really destroyed the World Trade Center, or did they just rearrange its atoms into something much better???

The ultimate irony would be for Bush to call Putin's favorite a moron, or compare him with Hitler.

America's media are rotten to the core. Many liberals rightly criticize the right-wing and "mainstream" media but don't realize that the liberal media is also corrupt. For example, Seattle boasts several "alternative" tabloids - the Seattle Weekly, The Stranger and Eat The State - that bash George W. Bush with the best of them, but they're actually corporate gatekeepers. They help dispense disinformation and are especially active in sabotaging local elections. A man named Geov Parrish writes for both the Seattle Weeky and Eat The State and now has a national soapbox. Reality Check: Parrish is a classic media whore, but liberals either adore him or ignore him. Nothing will change until people start thinking outside the box. Only independent thinking skills can penetrage the avalanche of propaganda that is dumped on us daily. I peruse the media daily, not just to keep up on the news but to study their propaganda techniques. People need to learn get their news from multiple sources, including private websites, and use a little logic in separating truth from fiction.

Millions of Americans will feast on turkey on Thanksgiving, as usual. But the thoughts of millions will be elsewhere - notably in Iraq. They'll be thinking of people who are risking - and often losing - their lives in a struggle that often seems hopeless. They fight for honor, dignity and essential freedoms. Life has never been the same since foreign terrorists first drew blood on their soil. Can they ever be safe from religious extremists who possess weapons of mass destruction? I, too, will be thinking of the Iraqi patriots who have made Fallujah a better symbol of valor than the Alamo. God bless them.

And what is the result of love? Friendships, marriage, etc. Hates and greed are emotions, too, and they also have results. If you don't believe in evil, then you can hardly believe in good, yet they are probably among the foundations of all major belief systems. So a quality doesn't exist unless we possess it ourselves? Catch up on your current events. Iraq, Afghanistan, hidden detention cells, even here in the U.S. (remember Captain James Yee?). You kind of get it, and you kind of don't. First, I'm not reaching a conclusion at all. I very clearly said that the LIMITS of Bush's evil cannot be known at present, but he MIGHT turn out to be another Hitler if given the power. Speculation based on common sense. The man's started a new global arms race, broken a nuclear treaty, militarized space, tried to produce "tactical nukes" and on and on. As I said earlier, they're philosophical prisoners. When philosophical clashes with common sense, maybe it's time to reexamine your philosophy. Now we're getting somewhere! Perhaps this exercise will help you better understand evil... What characteristics are attributed to Hitler? 1. He was power hungry. 2. He was sadistic. 3. He was bent on world conquest. Now let's compare Bush. 1. Whether Bush is power hungry or not, he's certainly very powerful. The Repugs control Congress and the Supreme Court, and they appear to be purging the CIA. Moreover, Bush does indeed appear to seek greater power, based on his comments and actions. 2. I don't know if stories about Bush torturing animals as child are true; I certainly haven't had the time to investigate them. However, remember Bush's infamous remarks shortly before Karla Fay Tucker (I think that was her name) was executed. Think about his trifecta jokes in the wake of 9/11. Or think about the torture that is now an instrument of military policy. George W. Bush is not a compassionate conservative. 3. Is George W. Bush bent on world conquest? At this point, that's speculation. But we have invaded three nations, two of which strongly support the theory that George Bush, Inc. want to dominate oil fields in the Middle East and Central Asia. In fact, Bush's administration has put lots of pressure on nations around the world. They are also developing weapons that would make world dominance easier. No, I'm suggesting that most sane adults understand what evil is. They know there really was a difference between Adolph Hitler and Mother Theresa, whereas you armchair philosophers scratch your heads and ask, "How are they any different?" That's obviously absurd. Frankly, you sound like a propagandist who's bent on persuading me not to insult George W. Bush - at least, not to compare him to Adolph Hitler.

I don't believe there are objective criteria for love, but we all know it exists, and it burns brighter in some hearts than in others. ISOLATED atrocities? Who's engaging in speculation now? There was no one to hold Hitler in check; he answered to no one. Bush has no choice but use some caution. Even so, he has still managed to implement torture as a military policy. But let's talk about the CAPABILITLY of executing millions. If Bush was on the verge of entering a war that threatened to kill an estimated ten million people, would his conscience urge him to seek a diplomatic situation, or would he just break out the nukes? Only someone who can't answer my question would dodge it. You're a prisoner of your own philosophy. You can't call anyone evil (except possibly Adolph Hitler), because you don't understand what evil is, it's subjective, etc., and you can't call anyone handsome, beautiful or ugly. Apparently, you live in a world where everything is the same shade of gray. Sounds boring. Ah, you're referring to the creationist crowd - the same slow-thinking dullards who are George W. Bush's biggest supporters. I think Adolph Hitler was evil, and I think George W. Bush is evil. Many people object to comparisons between the two, often noting that Hitler killed millions of people. I'm simply saying this argument is illogical, because it may measure the physical ABILITLY to kill millions, not the DESIRE. IF Bush had dictatorial powers, we might find out just how evil he really is. I suspect his supporters would discover that he's just as big a bastards as Hitler. Even if Bush merely stayed the course, he would be a SOB. Not necesssarily. Again, you need to consider both ABILITY and DESIRE. I would not give a man who murders one individual in the heat of passion a gold star, but I wouldn't be quick to brand him as evil, either. Most serial killers, on the other hand, are evil in my book. Like several others on this thread, you're just blabbering philosophical nonsense. Most sane adults could understand my original question, debate some finer points (e.g. How do you define and quantify evil), and understand that 1) We can't know that George W. Bush is as evil as Adolph Hitler, but 2) We can't be certain that he is NOT as evil as Hitler, either, and 3) we probably shouldn't give him even greater powers until we find out. BONUS: The evidence strongly suggests that George W. Bush is not only willing but eager to attack still more nations and engage in various behaviors that do indeed endanger millions of people. Right-wingers revere George W. Bush, sane people abhor him, and intellectual cowards just can't seem to make up their minds.

Just because Iran was and is MORE of a threat than Iraq doesn't mean it was or is a good idea to attack it. Now that Iran is apparently becoming a GREATER threat, it would seem that intervention would be more logical. But you have to consider many factors. For example, does Iran have a right to defend itself from a rogue superpower that has already launched an illegal war against its next door neighbor? And is Bush in any position to attack Iran when he's bogged down in Iraq and has few friends left??

It isn't just hippies versus rednecks. Hippies have been replaced by a much more diverse coalition who ultimately oppose corporate corruption, which is defended, intentionally or not, by right-wingers. To put it in perspective perspective, modern American history (which I say began with the Civil War) has been one long struggle between corporations and we the people, marked by two spectacularly successful rebellions. The first was the socialist movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The second was the "Flower Power" rebellion of the 1960s and 70s. Of course, right-wingers would say all these people were losers. More than losers, they were evil. They were dirty hippies, godless socialists and on and on. At first glance, the loser part might seem true. Why did the socialist movement vanish? I think it was a victim of its own success. Though socialists never succeeded in wresting power from corporate America, they did give Americans laws protecting workers, child protection laws, the 40-hour work week, overtime pay, labor unions and on and on. Anyone who says these are bad is a godless Communist, figuratively speaking. Why should weary protesters continue protesting if they finally had decent wages and some free time to spend with their families? Their hard fought victories were followed by the Great Depression and World War II, titanic events that diverted attention from labor issues. Moreover, World War II stimulated the economy. After the war, Americans enjoyed the fruits of their victory AND the gains made by socialists, even if they were forgotten. But America's socialist roots were rediscovered in the 1960s. The people who are lumped together as hippies may have been painted as drug-addicted losers, but they launched civil rights reforms and the environmental movement. When the war in Vietnam ended, what was left to protest? They had won, even if they never achieved a total victory. While licking its wounds, corporate America studied these grassroots victories, vowing they would never happen again. They immediately started working towards their own victory, adpating new tactics, including computers and the most sophisticated propaganda and manipulation the world has ever seen. Their propaganda includes demonizing socialism. Thus, the term "godless socialist," even though people attend church in Sweden. George Bush, Inc.'s greatest fear is that U.S. citizens will once again rediscover their socialist roots and rise up in a unified resistance. Even worse, what if they join hands with comrades around the world? Latin America is leaning towards socialism, and Spain now has a socialist government. The people have the power - they merely lack the will.

It isn't academic to Bush's victims. Not at all. Bush has proved his willingness to carry out his desires. There has been a lot of publicity about people - including some world leaders - who compare Bush to Hitler. Obviously, Bush's supporters claim the comparisons are ridiculous and insulting, noting that Hitler killed millions. I'm simply pointing out that the comparison is unfair because Hitler was in office for many years and was a true dictator. Bush is just getting warmed up. It's really common sense. The anti-Bush/neocon side has no credibility to begin with. BINGO! Now you're getting it! Adolph Hitler doesn't have a monopoly on evil. Idi Amin was evil, and he might have been as destructive as Bush if he had more power. There are probably two dozen public officials here in Seattle who are capable of mudering millions if they had the power. First, you suggest we shouldn't call anyone evil, since the term is "subjective," it's relative, it lacks "standards," or whatever. Now you're telling us there ARE evil people. But a person can't be labeled evil until they've killed - what - over one million people? So a man with no political power who kidnaps and tortures three individuals is not evil by your standards. Some standards!

Jesus, can you armchair philosophers even find your pencils??? Using your logic we would have to argue that there's no difference between Captain Kangaroo and Adolph Hitler. At the very least, we can't PROVE Captain Kangaroo wasn't as evil as Hitler because we lack an "objective standard." Have you ever considered common sense? Ditto for Pol Pot. So do we give the Nazis and Khmer Rouge the benefit of the doubt, or do we use a little backbone and say these people were bastards? I believe in accountability. Europe's Jews may have included some crooks, but the entire population didn't deserve to be annihilated. Some Muslims undoubtedly deserve to be punished, but that doesn't include 100,000 Iraqi civilians. The Bush gang, on the other hand, rank among the world's greatest criminals and America's greatest traitors. If you think violence is unacceptable, then we must assume that you oppose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And if you understand the nature of these wars, then we can only assume you regard George W. Bush as evil. Who was more evil - Adolph Hitler or Doris Day? Only a fool would answer "I don't know," or "It's impossible to tell." An intelligent adult would say that Bush and Hitler were indeed somewhat handsome, according to majority opinion. They certainly's weren't what the average person would consider ugly, though their faces came to be associated with evil and ugliness. 1. George W. Bush has used his awesome power to do evil. 2. Adolph Hitler used his more absolute power to do greater evil. 3. If Bush acquired more power, would we discover that he's even more evil than people imagined? Could he emulate Hitler in murdering six million people in crematoriums? If Bush DID murder six million people, we'd have to say he's no different than the girl next door, using your bizarre logic. Because how can we possibly compare a lunatic dictator to a girl next door???

Actually, I'm searching for a RELATIVE value. Obviously, we can't measure ANYONE'S evil quotient. But we all know what Adolph Hitler was more evil than Ferdinand Marcos, who was more evil than Hugo Chavez, who may have even been more evil than Mother Theresa. Any sane person would recognize George W. Bush as evil, in relative terms. People who say I can't prove Bush is as evil as Hitler make my original point - that we can't prove he's NOT as evil as Hitler, either. Bush doesn't have the power to truly do whatever he wants - yet.

Canadians apparently aren't as stupid as 48% of Americans. This thread didn't go anywhere - and then it died.

More precisely, they're helping Americans kill civilians. They aren't "invading" the way we are. 1. We have money. 2. The pounding is growing fainter as America becomes less attractive. Even some U.S. citizens are opting for new lives farther away from our Fuhrer. Right, we only gave weaons to people who were already well known thugs. Let's hope George W. Bush gets SARS.