Jump to content

Are you anti USA or anti Bush?


Recommended Posts

I'm an American and I recently saw a scientific poll of 35 nations that showed overwhelming disaproval of the Bush Administration. Most Americans know France opposes Bush and the war in Iraq but I don't think they're aware of how extensive the anti-Bush, anti-American sentiments are in the world at large.

We certainly don't see much news about Canadian public opinion and Canadian government positions towards the U.S. I wish we did. I wish the Canadian government would take a more strident position against the Bush doctrine because it is placing the Canadian people in grave danger.

This is not partisan hyperbole. As I said in my other post, Iraq is just the starting platform for the Pax American war plan and the next objective is Iran. We are headed for a catastrophe of biblical proportions but the American people are like a frog doing a slow boil in a pot of tepid water. They don't see the warning signs even though Bush has been sending signals about Iran ever since his infamous Axis of Evil speech.

If Canada does not take a strong stand against a wider war it should not complain when it gets drawn into the fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 163
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This is not partisan hyperbole. As I said in my other post, Iraq is just the starting platform for the Pax American war plan and the next objective is Iran.

You talk like that's a bad thing.

Certainly someone is going to have to do something about Iran or we're going to have crazed turbanheads with nukes - well, with nukes for about one day, which is all it'll take for them to use them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would think that the "old Left" has largely disappeared.

Nope, quite a few of them left, esp in the left wing of the Liberal party and among the NDP, people who still believe and drone on about the great possibilities of Marxism.

I don't recall seeing the word "Marxism" appearing in any NDP literature or in any candidate speeches in the last election. Why, I do believe this is, if not a lie, then a gross exaggeration.

their economic beliefs, their programs, their ideas for reducing poverty, et al, simply do not work. They're unrealistic and utterly ignore human nature.

One of my favorite right-wing boilerplates. Unfortunately, neoconservative economic policies have bombed everytime. Reganomics was a dud, Thatcherism caused far more woes than it solved, the Common Sense Revolution fizzled. Of course, in these instances, the right never applies the virtue of "personal responsibility" that hey drone on about: their policy failures are always someone else's fault.

Human beings are brought together now and work co-operatively to achieve a common good. They do this through markets but you apparently have no understanding of this.

"Free" markets can tangentially assist the common good through increase in economic prosperity. But it can also harm the common good through short-sightedness and rampant greed. The only true purpose of the market is to exchange goods and services and maximize profits.

But it was the State that condoned the sale of human beings.

Because the market demanded it. It was also the State that ended slavery (here anyway: the market for slaves elsewhereis still thriving).

Huh? Countries that adopt free markets become rich. This wealth is not confined to a small group. It means poor people in western countries live better now than at any time in history.

Um...in case you haven't noticed, wealth in western countries is confined to a small group: the "10 per centers". The vast majority are at the whim of the market place and certainly have little or no impact on it.

For instance:

-approximately 50% of RRSPs are held by the top 20% of income earners.

-A good 20% plus of Canadians have no net worth whatsoever

-50% of Canadians are still not in the stock market, directly or indirectly.

An informative look at Canadian income distribution

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not partisan hyperbole. As I said in my other post, Iraq is just the starting platform for the Pax American war plan and the next objective is Iran.

You talk like that's a bad thing.

Certainly someone is going to have to do something about Iran or we're going to have crazed turbanheads with nukes - well, with nukes for about one day, which is all it'll take for them to use them.

Nice: fear mongering with a dash of racial bigotry thrown in for good measure.

It's highly unlikely Iran would use nukes. The program is a detrrent.

Of course, Iran's hardliners have managed to get the upper hand after years of decline, thanks in large part to the fear of U.S. intervention. Iran was moving slowly towards popular reform then BAM!: the whoel "Axis of Evil" business came up and the hardliners clamped down and started hunkering down and prepping their nuke program.

The only people who have to "do something" about Iran are Iranians looking for change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US has no incontrovertible evidence whatsoever that Iran is making nuclear devices or trying to make them. The IAEC has nothing but greatly exaggerated reports that Iran has dual use technology which could be used for manufacturing WMD. And now Iran has offered them unfettered access to their facilities but Rummy and Bush are still ratcheting up for war.

You mentioned deterrence and it would make sense in light of Israel's nuclear capacity (third in the world) for Iran to want to have some measure of protection against an Israeli air strike. As it stands now if they were to retaliate they risk a nuclear response. Having just one warhead would make Israel think twice. But my cousin, who's in the nuclear bomb business, says that thermonuclear weapons are first and foremost political weapons and he doesn't think any state is stupid enough to use them. Nukes in the hands of terrorists would be a different story.

That's the topic on the radio right now. This is the second program in a row on a subject. The first one was a speech by Rummy to the National Press Club in which he reiterated again that "we must take the fight to the terrorists." Read: Iran.

Does anybody think that Saddam Hussein or Iran would spend billions on WMD development and then turn those weapons over to a band of unpredictable extremists? Osama bin Laden hates Saddam and his ilk and I'm sure he's not fond of the Iranian government either. He wants a totalitarian sectarian society for all of Muslim society.

I'll tell you what's going to happen. CIA and Mossad are spooking Iran and Israel has been threatening an air strike. There's going to some sort of manufactured incident like a border clash in Iraq or an alleged *Iranian sponsored* attack on Israel. Something will happen to give the Bush Administration justification for striking Iran. Mark my words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is interesting that polls show that a fairly substantial majority of Americans oppose the war in Iraq.

It is only when the questions include support of the Presidency that a small majority give support to the war. That majority may have dissipated now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would think that the "old Left" has largely disappeared.

Nope, quite a few of them left, esp in the left wing of the Liberal party and among the NDP, people who still believe and drone on about the great possibilities of Marxism.

I don't recall seeing the word "Marxism" appearing in any NDP literature or in any candidate speeches in the last election. Why, I do believe this is, if not a lie, then a gross exaggeration.

Even the NDP are bright enough to not talk about Marxism in a public speech. That doesn't mean they don't talk about it in private conservations. Union types are the same, when they get up high, they're stuffed full of leftist and Marxist readings, and you'll find quite a few talking about Marx and Lenin in conversations - but never in a speech to the membership.
One of my favorite right-wing boilerplates. Unfortunately, neoconservative economic policies have bombed everytime. Reganomics was a dud, Thatcherism caused far more woes than it solved, the Common Sense Revolution fizzled. Of course, in these instances, the right never applies the virtue of "personal responsibility" that hey drone on about: their policy failures are always someone else's fault.
While I was no big fan of Reagan, the US' much more conservative economic beliefs and system has tended to result in generally lower unemployment, higher wages, and a higher standard of living than in Canada. Thatcherism had its bad points, but was neccesary to heal an extremely sick system, almost run into the ground by leftist ideologues. And Harris' economic policies did no harm at all that I can see, rather to the contrary.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly someone is going to have to do something about Iran or we're going to have crazed turbanheads with nukes - well, with nukes for about one day, which is all it'll take for them to use them.

Nice: fear mongering with a dash of racial bigotry thrown in for good measure.

It's highly unlikely Iran would use nukes. The program is a detrrent.

First of all, I don't need to fear monger given the history of lunacy among Islamic extremists, nor given the fairly well documented instance when Iran's former president told cheering crowds that the instant Iran got nukes they would use them on Israel. Even though this would result in massive retaliation which could kill millions of Arabs, he said, it would be worth it, because Arabs would survive, but Israel would be destroyed.

Second, do you think I'm going to treat lunatics like this with respect? Racism? Against whom? I don't care what colour their skin is. All I care about is they're lunatics.

As far as Iran needing a deterrent - against whom? Israel? Has Israel ever attacked Iran? Is there any conceivable reason - other than Iran going after nukes, why Israel would attack Iran? Oh, maybe Iran's support of terrorists? So you think it's fair for Iran to get nukes in order to defend its terrorism?

Of course, Iran's hardliners have managed to get the upper hand after years of decline, thanks in large part to the fear of U.S. intervention.
Bullshit. There has been no fear of US intervention among Iranians. The Hardliners didn't "gain" the upper hand, they simply got tired of reformers and the senior lunatics put their foot down and ordered that none of them be allowed to run in parliament again. Those wretched, cruel, evil old religious wackos aren't about to give up power without a fight.

Now I would tend to agree that reform should be left up to Iranians - unless it looks like Iran is getting nukes. Then the gloves come off. The prospect of Iran as a nuclear power is far too dangerous to the entire world. A nuclear attack on Israel would result in an all-out retaliation against all Arab capitals and oil centres, and even if it didn't plunge the world into nuclear winter would kill tens of millions and throw the entire world into depression, killing millions more. I am not prepared to take that chance. If that means the US blowing the hell out of Iran's nuclear facilities or even invading them then I'm all for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US has no incontrovertible evidence whatsoever that Iran is making nuclear devices or trying to make them. The IAEC has nothing but greatly exaggerated reports  that Iran has dual use technology which could be used for manufacturing WMD.

Greatly exaggerated reports? I don't think there is any doubt by anyone who has followed the situation at all that Iran has been trying for almost twenty years to make nuclear weapons. They have been caught lying again and again about their activities, only admitting them when found in a lie, then making excuses. They have been working on nuclear technology such as enriching uranian and producing plutonium. They have gone to enormous lengths to deceive the world, including tearing down buildings and carting away the soil on which they stood before inspectors could show up. They have repeatedly violated teraty obligations. I suspect the only reason the IAEA has not outright condemned them is Iran's threat to "resume" enriching uranium if the agency dares to criticise it. (this presumes they have actually stopped, which, given their history of lies, cannot be confidentally assumed).

Iran's Secretive Nuclear Program

Iran's coverup

Iran nuke spill?

Iran makes threats

You mentioned deterrence and it would make sense in light of Israel's nuclear capacity (third in the world) for Iran to want to have some measure of protection against an Israeli air strike.
You don't spend billions on a nuclear program because you fear air strikes from a country which is not in a geographical position to make air strikes, and which never has before. Wouldn't a few fighters and radars be cheaper?
As it stands now if they were to retaliate they risk a nuclear response. Having just one warhead would make Israel think twice. But my cousin, who's in the nuclear bomb business, says that thermonuclear weapons are first and foremost political weapons and he doesn't think any state is stupid enough to use them. Nukes in the hands of terrorists would be a different story.
Your cousin is making the error of believing common sense and sanity govern the religious fanatic. The religious fanatic does not care much for common sense or sanity, else they'd not be what they are. Just think of all the lunatics willing to turn themselves into human bombs, oblivious of their own destruction because of their certainty of going to sit with Allah. Recall that the leaders of Iran are of a similar mindset. Why should mass death bother them if it defeats Allah's enemies? And those Muslims who die will simply see paradise sooner.
Does anybody think that Saddam Hussein or Iran would spend billions on WMD development and then turn those weapons over to a band of unpredictable extremists?
You make it sound like it's an either/or argument. There is no reason why Iran can't develop nukes for itself, then hand over a small one so that some terrorist group can plant it in Tel Aviv or Washington. After all, the terrorists have the same aim as the Iranian government - the complete destruction of Israel being a first step.

The chance is too great. Perhaps they do only want one as a threat. But the nuclear weapons in the hands of that shaky, kleptocracy called Russia are scary enough. Putting them into the hands of crazed religious wackos is just too damned dangerous. Iran cannot be allowed to have nukes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread has become schzoid!

I'll start a new thread in "Moral, Religion, etc." about the Old Left and answer some irritating posts there.

As to Bush and America, thanks EasyChair for getting this thread back on track.

Now I would tend to agree that reform should be left up to Iranians - unless it looks like Iran is getting nukes. Then the gloves come off.
Argus, you touched the key question.

Iran is truly a country of two sides: western and eastern. Its language is western but its habits are eastern, and its religion a particularity. Saudi Arabia has the trappings of western but it's not western at all. Individual Iranians are western but proud.

The US is not going to invade Iran.

If Israel or the US felt that Iran was close to having a nuclear weapon and a reliable means to deliver it, either might send in a cruise missile or two.

In a few years, there will be regime change in Teheran. Iranians will do it themselves. IOW, the Islamic republic as we know it will fall. It is already happening.

It's highly unlikely Iran would use nukes. The program is a detrrent.
It's pride.
This is not partisan hyperbole. As I said in my other post, Iraq is just the starting platform for the Pax American war plan and the next objective is Iran. We are headed for a catastrophe of biblical proportions but the American people are like a frog doing a slow boil in a pot of tepid water.
The "Biblical proportions" term is strange, EasyChair. Next objective, Iran? Is there some kind of predetermined plan here? Do you mean that Richard Nixon, in his secret will, laid out all the details? (Note: Ford appointed Bush Snr as CIA chief and Nixon appointed Ford as VP.)
I'm an American and I recently saw a scientific poll of 35 nations that showed overwhelming disaproval of the Bush Administration.
Welcome to the modern world. It ain't Bush they don't like, it's the raw expression of American interests.

In the 1980s, I used to say that Russians are well received in Western Europe and Americans well-received in Eastern Europe.

Everyone makes fun of lawyers. Same idea.

-----

I have started a new thread "Old Left vs New Left" under the Moral rubric.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US is not going to invade Iran.

If Israel or the US felt that Iran was close to having a nuclear weapon and a reliable means to deliver it, either might send in a cruise missile or two.

Unfortunately, the Osirak manoeuvre won't work with Iran. They have learned from what happened to Iraq's nuclear program. Theirs is scattered around dozens of secret locations. A few cruise missiles will not do the job. I think it would probably take a sustained bombing campaign. Or a sustained cruise missile campaign, probably using hundreds of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We certainly don't see much news about Canadian public opinion and Canadian government positions towards the U.S. I wish we did. I wish the Canadian government would take a more strident position against the Bush doctrine because it is placing the Canadian people in grave danger.

Well, many of us, including government officials have made their feelings known. Ms Parrish who called the American delegation damn bastards was re-elected and has since referred to American defensive shield supporters idiots.

Officially, we try to keep our mouths shut for economic reasons and hope that the American public comes to its senses and kicks Bush out of office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, the Osirak manoeuvre won't work with Iran. They have learned from what happened to Iraq's nuclear program. Theirs is scattered around dozens of secret locations. A few cruise missiles will not do the job. I think it would probably take a sustained bombing campaign. Or a sustained cruise missile campaign, probably using hundreds of them.

As we now know how poor the American intelligence agency is for accuracy; maybe millions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even the NDP are bright enough to not talk about Marxism in a public speech. That doesn't mean they don't talk about it in private conservations. Union types are the same, when they get up high, they're stuffed full of leftist and Marxist readings, and you'll find quite a few talking about Marx and Lenin in conversations - but never in a speech to the membership.

Oh giosh! Not private conversations! Why I bet they are probably scheming right now to build gulags and give workers control of the means of production!! :rolleyes:

Basically, you have no basis for your paranoid red-bating.

Thatcherism had its bad points, but was neccesary to heal an extremely sick system, almost run into the ground by leftist ideologues. And Harris' economic policies did no harm at all that I can see, rather to the contrary.

Ahem.

the right never applies the virtue of "personal responsibility" that hey drone on about: their policy failures are always someone else's fault.
First of all, I don't need to fear monger given the history of lunacy among Islamic extremists, nor given the fairly well documented instance when Iran's former president told cheering crowds that the instant Iran got nukes they would use them on Israel. Even though this would result in massive retaliation which could kill millions of Arabs, he said, it would be worth it, because Arabs would survive, but Israel would be destroyed.

And certainly a mullah would never use hyperbole to whip up a crowd, would he?

Citation please.

As far as Iran needing a deterrent - against whom? Israel? 

No: against the U.S.

Bullshit. There has been no fear of US intervention among Iranians. The Hardliners didn't "gain" the upper hand, they simply got tired of reformers and the senior lunatics put their foot down and ordered that none of them be allowed to run in parliament again. Those wretched, cruel, evil old religious wackos aren't about to give up power without a fight.

Iran's neocons poised to take charge

In addition to Iran’s political, social and economic problems, the confrontational stance adopted by the United States under the Bush administration has infused the neo-conservatives with a sense of urgency. The Bush administration, in which American neo-conservatives hold sway over Iranian policy, view Iran as a member of the "Axis of Evil," and, before US forces became bogged down in Iraq, often spoke of the need for regime change in Tehran. Some observers in Tehran believe that the recent emergence of the Revolutionary Guards as a force in Iranian politics is a direct response to the country’s developing geopolitical challenges.
Now I would tend to agree that reform should be left up to Iranians - unless it looks like Iran is getting nukes. Then the gloves come off. The prospect of Iran as a nuclear power is far too dangerous to the entire world. A nuclear attack on Israel would result in an all-out retaliation against all Arab capitals and oil centres, and even if it didn't plunge the world into nuclear winter would kill tens of millions and throw the entire world into depression, killing millions more. I am not prepared to take that chance. If that means the US blowing the hell out of Iran's nuclear facilities or even invading them then I'm all for it.

Iran's far more likely to use nukes if threatened than it would otherwise.

In a speech to the residents of the city of Hamedan on July 5, 2004, Iranian Leader Ali Khamenei said: " We, the Iranian people, within the borders of our country, will cut off any hand that harms our scientific, natural, human, or technological interests. We will cut off the hand that is sent to invade and work against our people's interests. We will do this with no hesitation…. If the enemy has the audacity to harm and invade, our blows against it will not be limited to the borders of our country… If someone harms our people and invades [our country], we will endanger his interests anywhere in the world
Today we enjoy high deterrent ability, and if the enemy acts in madness and wants to try his luck, he will, as the leader said, quickly see his black fate, and will regret acting against Iran's Islamic regime.
You don't spend billions on a nuclear program because you fear air strikes from a country which is not in a geographical position to make air strikes, and which never has before. Wouldn't a few fighters and radars be cheaper?

Uh...Israel has nukes, and has displayed a predilication to launching pre-emptive strikes at whim. The U.S has threatened Iran and has invaded neighbouring Iraq with th eintention of establishinga permenant military presecenc ein the region. A nuclear detrrent looks like a wise startegic move by the Iranians.

The religious fanatic does not care much for common sense or sanity, else they'd not be what they are. Just think of all the lunatics willing to turn themselves into human bombs, oblivious of their own destruction because of their certainty of going to sit with Allah. Recall that the leaders of Iran are of a similar mindset. Why should mass death bother them if it defeats Allah's enemies? And those Muslims who die will simply see paradise sooner.

Unfortunatley, your hypothesis falls apart onc eyou realize that he peole who perform suicide missions are seldom people of authority. face it: like all men, be they religious fanatics or just secularlly corrupt, the hardliners crave power and control. Prestige and wealth. They wouldn't jeapordize their position of social privilege by performing random acts of destruction that would guarantee their own demise. You said before that "Those wretched, cruel, evil old religious wackos aren't about to give up power without a fight." Why assume, then, given their desire for power above all else, that they would throw it away?

Iran cannot be allowed to have nukes.

What about Israel?

The US is not going to invade Iran.

i would add teh caveat "anytime soon."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...