Is my wish so awful?

[anticlimates]

Only those things will prevent that monster from stiring up more war and spreading more death and suffering.

[August1991]

Only those things will prevent that monster from stiring up more war and spreading more death and suffering.

You make it sound as if Bush Jnr started all this mayhem in the world.

"Gee whiz, the world was so much more peaceful before Bush Jnr arrived on the scene. Then, all hell broke loose."

How soon people forget. Or is it willful blindness.

Tell me, who flew those planes into those tall buildings in NYC and when did they do it?

[Trial-and-Error]

I'm sure your feeling is shared by hundreds of millions if not a few billions around the world. Anyone with a modicum of sensitivity and plain common sense would have had Junior's number the moment he uttered, "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists." His "either/or" immediately reflected most negatively upon his person.

At once he demonstrated that he was threatening; unworldly (nothing in this world is black or white, rather all life is comprised of a vast spectrum of grays); obsessively confrontational; and possessed skewed leadership skills attracting those who have the most to benefit from his presidency, those who can't or won't think for themselves, the gullible, the mindless flag wavers who can't see beyond the borders of their own country, the thoroughly propagandized, the incurably insensitive, hypocrites; the list goes on.

What I find so unnerving is that the average American is not in tune with his/her own common sense, logic and humanity. Most get their information from American television who don't provide news but rather propaganda. A few actually read books--albeit selective ones written in support of Bush's foreign policies--but show clearly they don't read critically. Unfortunately, if Bush continues with his agenda, those who have supported him and continue to support him will not be blameless for all the unnecessary deaths and horrific disabilities that have been and that are to come.

To what degree a nation is democratized and humane can be found in its human rights record particularly as it pertains to the treatment of its poor, sick, prisoners and other disenfranchised groups. Alas, the U.S. does not rank high. What's gauling is not so much that they haven't got it right but that they haven't got it right whilst claiming they're the world's best. Repetition doesn't turn falsehood into truth--pretty elementary but too many Americans mistake proclamation for fact.

But to get back to your original question, "Am I awful....?" Of course you're not, as you are voicing this sentiment in the absence of some other viable way of staving off additional horrific misery for hundreds of thousands of people. Failing the possibility that Americans as a whole wake up, I don't see how things are going to change for the better. I just wish there were sufficient numbers down there who would bring pressure to bear to have the man impeached.

Although I wouldn't shed a tear were he to suffer some kind of terminal accident, I think the current V.P. would be even worse. However were an accident to occur and they were both in it, welllll...........

No, it's won't work--alas. Lord knows what the American reaction would be if either or both were taken out, so perhaps we had just better hope that the American people rise up and take back their country from the despots through legal means.

[Slavik44]

Okay I am not a big fan of Bush but then agian I am not a big fan of his opposition either and comments like that of anticlimates sort of digs my position in. I think this positionis almost un-educated. We only have to look at hsitory to find needless wars, or imperialist actions. I mean the British wiped out entire continients of people, destroyed other peoples culture. The atlantic slave trade, Or the spanish they were no better enslaving people to work in gold mines. The opium wars, the boer war....the list just goes on. I am not trying to justify American actions by pointing out actions of countries inthe past. But I am trying to point out that what America is doing is nothing new and after Bush dies or America "fails", it will still happen it will just be another culprit.

To wish for bush to die or America to fail is absolutley ridiculous because it asserts then that America is the only country that has ever done evil. It will accomplish nothing, someoen willmove to replace them. All that will ahve complished is that someone will have died, and personally I don't enjoy myself when people die.

[anticlimates]

You make it sound as if Bush Jnr started all this mayhem in the world.

Who do you think started the Iraq war? The UN? Blair? Saddam?

Tell me, who flew those planes into those tall buildings in NYC and when did they do it?

It was a bunch of Al-Q extremists, and they did it on Sept.11th 2001. What kind of koolaid did you just wake up from?

The planes aren't the issue. The issue is Bush and the idiotic manner in which he conducts foreign policy. He's a complete failure, and there's no reason to doubt that he will whip up some more unnecessary violence in this world that will AGAIN cause 50 times the amount of death and injury 9/11 caused.

If Bush died, his successor might be just as ignorant and pig-headed.

The best thing would be a perceived failure in Iraq which would make it impossible for Bush to win support for anymore misguided adventures PNAC style.

[Stoker]

If Bush died, his successor might be just as ignorant and pig-headed.

The best thing would be a perceived failure in Iraq which would make it impossible for Bush to win support for anymore misguided adventures PNAC style.

Is my wish of wanting all sadists to burn in Hell awful? I know it's not very Christian........

May I ask, what type of kool aid have you been drinking? You understand how many further deaths will occur with a failure in Iraq right?

[anticlimates]

  To wish for bush to die or America to fail is absolutley ridiculous because it asserts then that America is the only country that has ever done evil. It will accomplish nothing, someoen willmove to replace them. All that will ahve complished is that someone will have died, and personally I don't enjoy myself when people die.

I didn't quote your whole post...the rest was a list of examples of past wars and death and slavery which you said was pointing out that this kind of stuff is nothing new.

I'm not sure why you make that point, but I'm "almost uneducated" ah guess.

Are you saying that we shouldn't care about suffering and trying to avoid it for the world becuse it's inevitable?

As for the quote above, my wish does not "assert then that America is the only country that has ever done evil".

It is meant to prevent death. If Bush died....or Iraq became perceived to be a failure in the USA (perceived as it is, that is)...then Bush would be politically and militarily unable to engage on another fools errand.

You said "I don't enjoy myself when people die" so you should support my wish....a dead or castrated Bush would prevent much death and suffering.

[Stoker]

then Bush would be politically and militarily unable to engage on another fools errand.

Why?

[anticlimates]

May I ask, what type of kool aid have you been drinking? You understand how many further deaths will occur with a failure in Iraq right?

Cherry.

You assume that a PERCEIVED FAILURE (which would really just be an accurate picture) in the USA means "further deaths".

Iraq has already failed. It's an incubator for terrorists. The insurgency will last as long as America wants to dance. They can kill them all day and they will keep coming back because the occupation and action create new enemies every day.

If democracy manages some kind of control there vs. another autocracy or some other non-democratic system.....can you really say deaths will be more numerous one way or the other? No, you can't.

All the outrage here stems from an assumption that a Bush failure confirmed in the collective mind of America somehow would mean more death and suffering in Iraq than otherwise. What a narrow assumption.

Iraq might be better off or basically the same either way.

And don't forget the untold thousands that will die if Bush creates the image of success in Iraq and thus spends his "political capital" invading another nation for abstract and rhetorical reasons.

[anticlimates]

then Bush would be politically and militarily unable to engage on another fools errand.

Why?

How can you even ask that? Why are you faking ignorance?

[Stoker]

Cherry.

You assume that a PERCEIVED FAILURE (which would really just be an accurate picture) in the USA means "further deaths".

Then what do you define a percevied failure?

Iraq has already failed. It's an incubator for terrorists. The insurgency will last as long as America wants to dance. They can kill them all day and they will keep coming back because the occupation and action create new enemies every day.

How can you say that "Iraq has failed" with such certainty? And can this "power" also allow you to see next weeks winning lotto numbers?

If democracy manages some kind of control there vs. another autocracy or some other non-democratic system.....can you really say deaths will be more numerous one way or the other? No, you can't.

I don't follow here........I tend to think after the elections, when Democracy takes hold, the violence will start to subside. Then when a proper Iraqi army is deployed, thus reducing the need for American troops, resulting in an American withdrawl, you will see the levels of violence drop even further.

All the outrage here stems from an assumption that a Bush failure confirmed in the collective mind of America somehow would mean more death and suffering in Iraq than otherwise. What a narrow assumption.

Can you state how it wouldn't? You seem to be grasping at straws........What type of failure in Iraq won't result in more deaths?

Iraq might be better off or basically the same either way.

How?

And don't forget the untold thousands that will die if Bush creates the image of success in Iraq and thus spends his "political capital" invading another nation for abstract and rhetorical reasons.

And how many people are dying in that country that Bush is going liberate, from the hands of a dictator today?

QUOTE (Stoker @ Jan 26 2005, 01:01 AM)

QUOTE 

then Bush would be politically and militarily unable to engage on another fools errand.

Why? 

How can you even ask that? Why are you faking ignorance?

Nope, I'm just asking a question........whats wrong.......is your own ignorant BS that you have been spouting not making sense to yourself now?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Stoker,

Then what do you define a percevied failure?

How can you say that "Iraq has failed" with such certainty?

The USA 'failed' only in what it said it was 'intending to do', not what it was really intending to do. Freedom can only be won, in any lasting sense, fom the inside. Democracy has no hope if the people don't want or are afraid to fight for it. In that sense, it can't belong those who won't fight for it, and it was a failing of the USA to not recognize that if the Iraqi's themselves weren't prepared to fight for it, then it is a useless gift.

One day, the Iraqi majority might decide that democracy is worth fighting for. Then again, one day, all the world's major religions might just sit down together and debate "Which is the one true god?"

[Guest eureka]

TFB:

You are quite right but I would go further. Democracy can not be imposed in any way; by force or even persuasion. The attainment of democracy is a long slow process that can only be brought about by internal pressures.

Even if the elections in Iraq are successful, it will not bring about any form of democracy. It may bring a condition where democracy has a chance to take its first tentative steps: that is doubtful given the circumstance in which the elections are to be held.

The people of Iraq do not know the candidates: there is no party structure: there is no philosophy of government or platform of any kind. How can there be a representative democracy when the representatives are unknown to the electors and have no known positions on anything?

I suspect that the election of a house by whatever name will be the prlude to greater discord and violence.

I hope I am wrong.

[Stoker]

The USA 'failed' only in what it said it was 'intending to do', not what it was really intending to do. Freedom can only be won, in any lasting sense, fom the inside. Democracy has no hope if the people don't want or are afraid to fight for it. In that sense, it can't belong those who won't fight for it, and it was a failing of the USA to not recognize that if the Iraqi's themselves weren't prepared to fight for it, then it is a useless gift.

Do we know that Iraqi's don't want freedom or that they won't fight for it?

One day, the Iraqi majority might decide that democracy is worth fighting for. Then again, one day, all the world's major religions might just sit down together and debate "Which is the one true god?"

Let's wait and see what the Iraqi voter turnout looks like on Sunday.........

You are quite right but I would go further. Democracy can not be imposed in any way; by force or even persuasion. The attainment of democracy is a long slow process that can only be brought about by internal pressures.

You speak with such finality on the mater, which forces me to ask you to explain post-war Japan.........

Even if the elections in Iraq are successful, it will not bring about any form of democracy. It may bring a condition where democracy has a chance to take its first tentative steps: that is doubtful given the circumstance in which the elections are to be held.

If free elections are sucessful, why is it that you claim democracy can't become a sucess in Iraq?

The people of Iraq do not know the candidates: there is no party structure: there is no philosophy of government or platform of any kind. How can there be a representative democracy when the representatives are unknown to the electors and have no known positions on anything?

Whats this based on? Do you have some source that shows this to be correct?

Here's a list of links of some Iraqi parties:

Iraqi parties

[Slavik44]

  To wish for bush to die or America to fail is absolutley ridiculous because it asserts then that America is the only country that has ever done evil. It will accomplish nothing, someoen willmove to replace them. All that will ahve complished is that someone will have died, and personally I don't enjoy myself when people die.

I didn't quote your whole post...the rest was a list of examples of past wars and death and slavery which you said was pointing out that this kind of stuff is nothing new.

I'm not sure why you make that point, but I'm "almost uneducated" ah guess.

Are you saying that we shouldn't care about suffering and trying to avoid it for the world becuse it's inevitable?

As for the quote above, my wish does not "assert then that America is the only country that has ever done evil".

It is meant to prevent death. If Bush died....or Iraq became perceived to be a failure in the USA (perceived as it is, that is)...then Bush would be politically and militarily unable to engage on another fools errand.

You said "I don't enjoy myself when people die" so you should support my wish....a dead or castrated Bush would prevent much death and suffering.

Not at all, doing something productie to alievate problems you see in society would be a great start. That being said wishing bush would die or that America will get its ass kicked in Iraq is not productive. I was also pointing out that when America passes on or when bush passes on there will be another country to replace it is as the worlds bully. You made it sound, in your post, as if the death of bush would be the end of all evils in this world, or the death of America woudl be the end of all evils in the world, I simply think that is a load of crap.

Now as for Bush dieing how would that help? Are you telling me that if Bush died America would get up and leave Iraq? While I applaud your uhmm... twisted optimism...I have feeling that the war would go on with out bush, so then in the end someone died for nothing. That being said I can't help but notice you also proposed castrating George Bush, which will what Purify the American race? Which makes me wonder, is this really about Iraq? Or is this about a deep hatred for a man you see as dispicable and evil who deserves no right to live. I woudl liek to ask you what gives you the right to play God and further what gives you the right to condmen george Bush when your own hatred, and proposed actions against him put you right there with dubya.

Now the last polls I checked showed Iraq as being viewed as a failure by the American people, so you got your wish, it hasn't changed anything, except Dubya got a couple million more votes. Now if you mean that Iraq becomes such a failure that American troops pull out, well that sure is a crummy wish. I mean If I was going to wish for something It would be that Iraq stabilized...not that this would be likely but hey were just wishing right. All I see is someone wishing with hatred, who wants to see death, and justifies it using the same principles Bush himself used. As I said you two really are not that different.

[PocketRocket]

Is my wish so awful?, I wish Bush would die or the US fail.

Given the opportunity, would you put a gun to Bush's head and pull the trigger???

I don't think so. Very few, if any, of us would.

When spouting rhetoric, we've all said something of the sort about someone. at sometime.

Rhetoric aside, I would say that I wish Bush would get common sense, and that the USA as a nation would get humility.

[daniel]

Personally, I wish for no one to die. But we all know that would raise a whole lot of other problems.

I would wish that the US Presidency and government would just get off its high-horse and start cooperating with the rest of the world.

Mind you, this doesn't mean that there are other countries that should be let off the hook for conflicts they are involve in.

[Shakeyhands]

finally a post that answers the question very well without sounding like it was written by a pompous air bag. Thx Daniel

[I miss Reagan]

Intolerance. Plain and simple intolerance of others views. The blind hatred of Bush by those on the extreme left is so intense they want to kill him. Liberal fascisim? The purpose of this thread seems to be to belittle conservatives and talk yourselves into believing that we really are uneducated and ignorant.

[Black Dog]

I wish Bush would die or the US fail.

Well, as much I find Bush reprehensible, I wouldn't actively wish for his death (nor would I shed any tears if it just sorta happened that way). The thing is Bush is not the problem, but a symptiom. The real disease is the fascism which has infected the American body politic.

As for the U.S. failing, take heart: sic transit gloria mundi. Empire's fall and I believe the rise of fascism (in the form of the unholy alliance between corporate ploutocrats, reactionary religious fundamentalists and neconservative idealogues marching under the banner of "compassionate conservativism") marks the beginning of the end.

You understand how many further deaths will occur with a failure in Iraq right?

Leaving Iraq to the Iraqis might lead to furthe rbloodshed or possible civil war, but at this point, it would be the only reasonable thing to do from a classical liberal perspective.

Given the U.S.'s indifference to the plight of the Iraqi people prior to 1991 and heir committment to killing many more Iraqis now, I don't think lives saved is a benchmark or success in Iraq, nor is the establishment of a puppet regime or the holding of demonstration elections.

tend to think after the elections, when Democracy takes hold, the violence will start to subside. Then when a proper Iraqi army is deployed, thus reducing the need for American troops, resulting in an American withdrawl, you will see the levels of violence drop even further.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Ehen Allawi "wins" the election, the insurgency will lay down their weapons, ancient tribal and religious rifts will be miraculously healed, jobs will suddenly flourish, clean water will flow from the sea, money will sprout from trees, democracy will bring all Iraqis together and the Americans will link arms and serenade Iraq with a rousng chorus of "We are the Champions" before tipping their hats and going home to reflect on a job well done.

OR... the elections will widely be considered illegitimate (how legitimate can an election be when candidates cannot show their faces and people can't even get to the polls to vote?), the insurgency will continue to grow in scope and audacity, the Iraqi army will remain ineffective due to threats, attrition and defections to the insurgency, The U.S. wil contine to buld its permenant bases and carry out operations against th einsurgency , killing many more civilians and creating more animosity. Ethnic divisions will keep on simmering, and above all, people will keep dying.

And how many people are dying in that country that Bush is going liberate, from the hands of a dictator today?

So, is someone killed by a dictator less dead if they're killed by a U.S. bomb?

Do we know that Iraqi's don't want freedom or that they won't fight for it?

Iraqis want freedom. I'm sure of that. But what they don't want is to exchange one boss (Saddam) for another (a U.S. puppet government). They want what everyone else wants: a chance to make their own way.

You speak with such finality on the mater, which forces me to ask you to explain post-war Japan.........

Totally different situation, culture, and circumstances.

If free elections are sucessful, why is it that you claim democracy can't become a sucess in Iraq?

Becasue simply having a vote isn't democracy.By that standard, Saddam's Iraq (which had both show elections for the antional party and real elections for local authorities) would be a democracy.

The purpose of this thread seems to be to belittle conservatives and talk yourselves into believing that we really are uneducated and ignorant.

I don't think Bush's supporters are necessarily uneducated and ignorant. Well, okay: some are. Others are just unable to sort truth from propaganda or are seduced by the black and white world of Bush, where complex problems have simple solutions, war is peace, etc. etc. It's the same illness that afflicted so many Germans, Italians and Spaniards in the '30s. Others know exactly what they are doing and are supporting Bush because he is their best shot at advancing their agenda.

[Guest eureka]

How is it possible to belittle a conservative - whatever the animal really is? Would we want that? Modern "conservatism" is so small and petty that anything smaller would be invisible to the naked eye and as dangerous as many other viruses.

[losiguy]

beans

[Stoker]

Leaving Iraq to the Iraqis might lead to furthe rbloodshed or possible civil war, but at this point, it would be the only reasonable thing to do from a classical liberal perspective.

Let them fend for themselves? Thats classic Liberal?

Given the U.S.'s indifference to the plight of the Iraqi people prior to 1991 and heir committment to killing many more Iraqis now, I don't think lives saved is a benchmark or success in Iraq, nor is the establishment of a puppet regime or the holding of demonstration elections.

Then what would you consider a success in Iraq?

OR... the elections will widely be considered illegitimate (how legitimate can an election be when candidates cannot show their faces and people can't even get to the polls to vote?), the insurgency will continue to grow in scope and audacity, the Iraqi army will remain ineffective due to threats, attrition and defections to the insurgency, The U.S. wil contine to buld its permenant bases and carry out operations against th einsurgency , killing many more civilians and creating more animosity. Ethnic divisions will keep on simmering, and above all, people will keep dying.

In your opinion, what needs to be done to consider these elections "legitimate"?

So, is someone killed by a dictator less dead if they're killed by a U.S. bomb?

No, but would you rather die free man/woman or oppressed?

Iraqis want freedom. I'm sure of that. But what they don't want is to exchange one boss (Saddam) for another (a U.S. puppet government). They want what everyone else wants: a chance to make their own way.

Define a "puppet government".

The Americans have already stated, that in the likely event that a Shi'a majority will win the elections, if the new Iraqi government were to ask the Americans to leave, they would.

QUOTE 

You speak with such finality on the mater, which forces me to ask you to explain post-war Japan.........

Totally different situation, culture, and circumstances.

How do any of the differences mater?

The Japenese went from a ruling deity that the common man could not look at and a military run government to democracy in less then a decade.

[Black Dog]

Let them fend for themselves? Thats classic Liberal?

Yes it is. We're not their parents, not are they our subjects. The only way for Iraqis to be truly free is if they are free not only from tyrrany, but from the meddling of foreign powers.

Besides, there's no gurantee that the end of the occupation will mean more bloodshed. But the continuance of the occupation is a gurantoor of bloodshed.

Then what would you consider a success in Iraq?

An actual, independent, functioning secular pluralistic democracy with full control over the fate of its own soverignty, including resources and markets.

I also happen to wholly believe that such is not the end goal of the U.S. intervention. That's not to say they won't take it if by some miracle such a thing emerges (so long as it remains pliant to the U.S.), but they'll take a Saddam-lite puppet regime if it suits them.

In your opinion, what needs to be done to consider these elections "legitimate"?

Well given that hese elections are being conducted under the auspices of a foreign military power, the end of the military occupation would be a good start.

No, but would you rather die free man/woman or oppressed?

It's pretty easy to make those judgements when you are not the one under the gun.

Hey kids, sorry we riddled your parents with bullets (accidents happen, donchewknow), but take heart: at least they died free!

Define a "puppet government".

A government that is established by and whose affairs are directed by an outside authority.

he Americans have already stated, that in the likely event that a Shi'a majority will win the elections, if the new Iraqi government were to ask the Americans to leave, they would.

Gee, that's mighty big of them to make an offer they'll never have to follow through with. What a bunch of good sports!

How do any of the differences mater?

Because they're not the same situation at all?Are you being intentionally obtuse?

The new Japan?

Not even close.

[Stoker]

Yes it is. We're not their parents, not are they our subjects. The only way for Iraqis to be truly free is if they are free not only from tyrrany, but from the meddling of foreign powers.

Why can't that argument be made against social welfare in this country?

An actual, independent, functioning secular pluralistic democracy with full control over the fate of its own soverignty, including resources and markets.

And how do you know that won't be achieved with these elections, and ensuing elections in Iraq?

I also happen to wholly believe that such is not the end goal of the U.S. intervention. That's not to say they won't take it if by some miracle such a thing emerges (so long as it remains pliant to the U.S.), but they'll take a Saddam-lite puppet regime if it suits them.

Can I ask what leads you to belieive this assumption you hold?

Well given that hese elections are being conducted under the auspices of a foreign military power, the end of the military occupation would be a good start.

So any country that holds elections with forgein observers and peacekeepers can't have a true election?

Has the United Nations not helped in these elections?

Has there been any real concerns raised about the potential "fairness" of these elections by the United Nations?

It's pretty easy to make those judgements when you are not the one under the gun.

And it's pretty easy to make judgments, that are akin to letting Iraqis fending for themsevles, when you are not under the gun......is it not?

A government that is established by and whose affairs are directed by an outside authority.

So you have evidence that suggests the future Iraqi elected government, will in fact be only a "puppet"?