To understand why the whole world hate Bush, I'm curious to read the arguments of fellow merbites.
Why the whole world detest Bush?
- Thread starter wakeman
- Start date
I am an American, Reblican and I will vote for Bush again.
I agree that on t.v. when he is talking to press, he does not cumminicate as well as Clinton. That does not mean he is stupid or a moron. I think he is doing a great job of protecting US from terrorists. What did Clinton do about that??? Too busy to fool around with Fat Monica.
Trust me Kerry will not get elected. How many times he changed his mind about the war???
I agree that on t.v. when he is talking to press, he does not cumminicate as well as Clinton. That does not mean he is stupid or a moron. I think he is doing a great job of protecting US from terrorists. What did Clinton do about that??? Too busy to fool around with Fat Monica.
Trust me Kerry will not get elected. How many times he changed his mind about the war???
Bush
True, it was revealed that Clinton didn't do 'as much' in national security than Bush even though he knew there were groups trying to attack the US. But no terrorist groups attacked in US soil while Clinton was president.
Tell me what did Bush do to stop the 9/11 attack. He knew in advance that Al Quaeda was going to hijack planes to attack the US. What did he do? Let me tell you, he went on vacation! After 9/11, what did he do? Bin Laden and Al Quaeda are still running free. Is that protecting the US against terrorists? Scaring the US population with orange, red alert levels.... that is not protecting the US.
While the real terrorists who attacked the US are running free, Bush decides to attack Irak because they have weapon of mass destruction! No such weapons were found. Maybe he should have look in his own backyard or in Israel where the real destructive weapons are. So he sent kids from underprivileged neighborhoods to fight his war for OIL and to get revenge for daddy. Terrorists were not in Irak but oil is.
To make the US population on his side, he censors all the big US TV networks (FOX, CNN...) to show how the war is going on well and that the world is all behind the US. Total bullshit! Here in Canada, we saw all the anti-war protests, we see the casualties, the civilians, children injured in our news.
Every American should go see Michael Moore's F 9/11 and maybe stop watching Fox news or CNN and start watching news from around the world to see what is really happening in Irak.
That is why the whole world hates Bush.
Hope the FBI won't come knocking at my door because I said bad things about Bush.
True, it was revealed that Clinton didn't do 'as much' in national security than Bush even though he knew there were groups trying to attack the US. But no terrorist groups attacked in US soil while Clinton was president.
Tell me what did Bush do to stop the 9/11 attack. He knew in advance that Al Quaeda was going to hijack planes to attack the US. What did he do? Let me tell you, he went on vacation! After 9/11, what did he do? Bin Laden and Al Quaeda are still running free. Is that protecting the US against terrorists? Scaring the US population with orange, red alert levels.... that is not protecting the US.
While the real terrorists who attacked the US are running free, Bush decides to attack Irak because they have weapon of mass destruction! No such weapons were found. Maybe he should have look in his own backyard or in Israel where the real destructive weapons are. So he sent kids from underprivileged neighborhoods to fight his war for OIL and to get revenge for daddy. Terrorists were not in Irak but oil is.
To make the US population on his side, he censors all the big US TV networks (FOX, CNN...) to show how the war is going on well and that the world is all behind the US. Total bullshit! Here in Canada, we saw all the anti-war protests, we see the casualties, the civilians, children injured in our news.
Every American should go see Michael Moore's F 9/11 and maybe stop watching Fox news or CNN and start watching news from around the world to see what is really happening in Irak.
That is why the whole world hates Bush.
Hope the FBI won't come knocking at my door because I said bad things about Bush.
Fang, you do not answer my question.
I give you a clue: from canadian's point of view. First strike: A tradition started about a 100 years ago by Roosevelt (correct me if it's the wrong president) is that Canada is the first country to be visited after being elected. This, to show that Canada and USA are the closest friends. Bush went first to Mexico. Second strike: While in Mexico, Bush declared before TV cameras that Mexico is their best and biggest commercial partners. Canada makes 35 times more commerce in $ than Mexico. Strike three: Were at the evening of the sad September 11, 2001. Since the air traffic has been stopped over USA and most busy air corridors passes close to Canada, all the canadian airports are jammed full, specially Gander in Newfoundland (By the way, NFLD is very poor). Hotels became quickly overbooked. Others didn't have enough money to pay the extra fees for hotel. Canadians families picked up those peoples in their home and fed them without asking a penny becaused they felt it was important to support peoples considered as being close friends. When G. W. Bush talked before the medias, he thanked almost all the countries ... except Canada. Strike four: A humorist found the way to get him on the phone, saying he is Jean Poutine, prime minister of Canada. Bush declared that Jean Poutine was one of his great friend. The problem is that the prime minister at that time was Jean Chrétien and the president of Russia is Vladimir Poutine. We could say, at least, that Bush doesn't pay a lot of attention to his neighbors. And I could give you a lot more exemples.
I don't think that Bush is a moron, he would not be US president if this was true. But you should admit that he is the most clumsy and tactless diplomat USA had ever got as president. Don't people see that in USA?
I give you a clue: from canadian's point of view. First strike: A tradition started about a 100 years ago by Roosevelt (correct me if it's the wrong president) is that Canada is the first country to be visited after being elected. This, to show that Canada and USA are the closest friends. Bush went first to Mexico. Second strike: While in Mexico, Bush declared before TV cameras that Mexico is their best and biggest commercial partners. Canada makes 35 times more commerce in $ than Mexico. Strike three: Were at the evening of the sad September 11, 2001. Since the air traffic has been stopped over USA and most busy air corridors passes close to Canada, all the canadian airports are jammed full, specially Gander in Newfoundland (By the way, NFLD is very poor). Hotels became quickly overbooked. Others didn't have enough money to pay the extra fees for hotel. Canadians families picked up those peoples in their home and fed them without asking a penny becaused they felt it was important to support peoples considered as being close friends. When G. W. Bush talked before the medias, he thanked almost all the countries ... except Canada. Strike four: A humorist found the way to get him on the phone, saying he is Jean Poutine, prime minister of Canada. Bush declared that Jean Poutine was one of his great friend. The problem is that the prime minister at that time was Jean Chrétien and the president of Russia is Vladimir Poutine. We could say, at least, that Bush doesn't pay a lot of attention to his neighbors. And I could give you a lot more exemples.
I don't think that Bush is a moron, he would not be US president if this was true. But you should admit that he is the most clumsy and tactless diplomat USA had ever got as president. Don't people see that in USA?
Hate is a strong word. The reason(s) some won't vote for Bush is/are varied,but the end result is the same. No vote for him. Some were against the invasion of Iraq. Some don't like that he's pro-life,some don't like that he's pro 2nd ammendment, some won't vote for him on his environmental stance. Some will vote for him because he wants to blur the line between church & state, some will not vote for him because of this. This is not a 1 issue election.
? for Wakeman
That comedian really said "Jean Poutine" as in the french fries with the gravy on them? Is there a recording somewhere? .Sounds too funny. It would make a good clip for Farenheit 911 part deux.
That comedian really said "Jean Poutine" as in the french fries with the gravy on them? Is there a recording somewhere? .Sounds too funny. It would make a good clip for Farenheit 911 part deux.
If memory serves well, it was from a clip from "This hour has 22 minutes" during the infamous "Talk with americans". The comedian is seen going to Bush and ask that question on camera.
It was, to say the least, interesting.
It was, to say the least, interesting.
A lot of the posters who have posted on this topic fail to understand that the European nations are responsible for terrorism as it now exists in the world, and that the attitude that Bush supporters have towards Europe is richly deserved.
There is a book by Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard Law Professor, called "Why Terrorism Works", which traces the history of modern terrorism since 1968. The book blames the European nations' continual reward and appeasement of terrorism as the single most important factor in the growth of worldwide terrorism. I would strongly suggest that all of you read this book.
There is a book by Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard Law Professor, called "Why Terrorism Works", which traces the history of modern terrorism since 1968. The book blames the European nations' continual reward and appeasement of terrorism as the single most important factor in the growth of worldwide terrorism. I would strongly suggest that all of you read this book.
BTW, Dershowitz is the guy who advocates the use of torture on priosonners.
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/03/cnna.Dershowitz/
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/03/cnna.Dershowitz/
There is a whole chapter in "Why Terrorism Works" about the proposed SELECTIVE use of torture on terrorist prisoners.
It should be noted that Dershowitz himself was the target of a terrorist plot to assassinate him in the 1980s, which was foiled by the FBI. He also discusses this in his book. The would be terrorist assassins were Arab students at a Boston university who were outraged by Dershowitz' public support of Israel.
It should be noted that Dershowitz himself was the target of a terrorist plot to assassinate him in the 1980s, which was foiled by the FBI. He also discusses this in his book. The would be terrorist assassins were Arab students at a Boston university who were outraged by Dershowitz' public support of Israel.
You should also read Gore Vidal's "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, Why We Got To Be So Hated." An eye opener from an American who can, almost suprisingly, see things from ROW's (Rest of World's) point of view.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_8/002-6431570-2047265?v=glance&s=books
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_8/002-6431570-2047265?v=glance&s=books
I can't believe why anyone hasn't said it - Bush is a moron. He has demonstrated this over and over during the past 30 years (insert Neil Young's Fuckin' Up here). Him being president has nothing to do with his intelect, experience (except perhaps for being past Govenor of Tex-ass), knowledge of the ROW, abilities at diplomacy, etc...
If Americans only stoped getting their news and information from major American media (FOX, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS) perhaps the world would not be stuck with this moron and his gang of cronnies on the loose...
The responses on this thread are laughable and illustrate some of the problems with America today.
America is still a great country - please don't fuck it up any further by re-electing Junior...the world can only bear so much crap.
Just a few thoughts for today...
Y'all have a nice day now y'hear.
If Americans only stoped getting their news and information from major American media (FOX, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS) perhaps the world would not be stuck with this moron and his gang of cronnies on the loose...
The responses on this thread are laughable and illustrate some of the problems with America today.
America is still a great country - please don't fuck it up any further by re-electing Junior...the world can only bear so much crap.
Just a few thoughts for today...
Y'all have a nice day now y'hear.
Pierre Paul,
I actually agree with just about everything you have said in this thread, but I thought it important to look at this other question in order to intelligently analyze the original poster's question.
It is unfortunate that the USA has had to play the role of world policeman because some other nations were extremely negligent in collectively playing that role. But that is the situation that we have. And let's not forget that it was the same negligence by these European nations that led to World Wars I and II and the dragging of both the USA and Canada into those conflicts.
You are correct that no matter who is President the USA (and Canada and the rest of the western world) will continue to be hated by the Arab nations and the reasons are just as much (or more) socioeconomic, cultural and religious than they are political.
Bush and his administration have not been the greatest diplomats, however I think most Americans agree with the essentials of his foreign policy. Even though the specific justifications for intervening in Iraq when we did are questionable, I think an armed conflict with Iraq was ultimately inevitable. The Israelis realized the same thing when they bombed the Iraqi nuclear capability back in 1981. Had the Israelis not done this, the 1990 Persian Gulf War would have been much more catastrophic then it actually was.
The real question is where do we go from here with the Arab nations. No matter who is elected President in November we have the same problems with these countries - failure to separate Church (or Mosque) and State, the indoctrination of uneducated citizenries with religious fundamentalism, the subjugation of women as nonproductive members of society who exist only to bear children and follow the orders of their husbands, and the brainwashing and manipulation of these citizenries to believe that the USA and Israel are the root of all of their problems, when in fact their own corrupt social and political systems, which have driven all of the talented and educated Arab citizens into the west, are the root of their problems. The problem is getting worse, and there does not appear to be any way to stop it short of imposing democracy on each of these countries, which is something that is itself unworkable.
I actually agree with just about everything you have said in this thread, but I thought it important to look at this other question in order to intelligently analyze the original poster's question.
It is unfortunate that the USA has had to play the role of world policeman because some other nations were extremely negligent in collectively playing that role. But that is the situation that we have. And let's not forget that it was the same negligence by these European nations that led to World Wars I and II and the dragging of both the USA and Canada into those conflicts.
You are correct that no matter who is President the USA (and Canada and the rest of the western world) will continue to be hated by the Arab nations and the reasons are just as much (or more) socioeconomic, cultural and religious than they are political.
Bush and his administration have not been the greatest diplomats, however I think most Americans agree with the essentials of his foreign policy. Even though the specific justifications for intervening in Iraq when we did are questionable, I think an armed conflict with Iraq was ultimately inevitable. The Israelis realized the same thing when they bombed the Iraqi nuclear capability back in 1981. Had the Israelis not done this, the 1990 Persian Gulf War would have been much more catastrophic then it actually was.
The real question is where do we go from here with the Arab nations. No matter who is elected President in November we have the same problems with these countries - failure to separate Church (or Mosque) and State, the indoctrination of uneducated citizenries with religious fundamentalism, the subjugation of women as nonproductive members of society who exist only to bear children and follow the orders of their husbands, and the brainwashing and manipulation of these citizenries to believe that the USA and Israel are the root of all of their problems, when in fact their own corrupt social and political systems, which have driven all of the talented and educated Arab citizens into the west, are the root of their problems. The problem is getting worse, and there does not appear to be any way to stop it short of imposing democracy on each of these countries, which is something that is itself unworkable.
Last edited:
I am an undecided voter, and I am leaning towards voting for the 3rd Party Candidate (Ralph Nader, if gets on ballot in CT), but ideologically I am closer to Bush than I am to Kerry.
Pierrepaul,
Connecticut voted overwhelmingly for Gore in 2000, and I have no reason to believe that Connecticut will not vote for Kerry this year. However, we are a small state with only 7 electoral votes and we likely will have very little impact on the outcome of this election.
Connecticut voted overwhelmingly for Gore in 2000, and I have no reason to believe that Connecticut will not vote for Kerry this year. However, we are a small state with only 7 electoral votes and we likely will have very little impact on the outcome of this election.
EB,
Are you sure that Dershowitz gives an objective analysis of the source of modern terrorism? The strategies used by terrorists like ticking bombs has been developped by the Hagannah after WWII to force the British colonial administration to give them a territory. They called that "their independance war". When Dershowitz starts in 1968, are you sure he's not, at least, a bit biased?
I did a search on Alan Dershowitz. The one I found infos on ounce declared that targeted assassinations and torture were acceptable to fight terrorism. That guy also said that Israel should destroy the village a terrorist is coming from, men, women, children, houses and buildings. Everything should disappear from the map. It looks like Hitler's strategy that produce the shoah.
I can't believe you really agree with that clown!
P.S.: It's nice to see you are back on line!
Are you sure that Dershowitz gives an objective analysis of the source of modern terrorism? The strategies used by terrorists like ticking bombs has been developped by the Hagannah after WWII to force the British colonial administration to give them a territory. They called that "their independance war". When Dershowitz starts in 1968, are you sure he's not, at least, a bit biased?
I did a search on Alan Dershowitz. The one I found infos on ounce declared that targeted assassinations and torture were acceptable to fight terrorism. That guy also said that Israel should destroy the village a terrorist is coming from, men, women, children, houses and buildings. Everything should disappear from the map. It looks like Hitler's strategy that produce the shoah.
I can't believe you really agree with that clown!
P.S.: It's nice to see you are back on line!
Wakeman,
I would suggest you read the book "Why Terrorism Works" and do your own analysis rather than let others posting commentaries on the web (which are also biased) do the analysis for you. Dershowitz's theories are not that radical. And the history he gives since 1968 is 100% accurate. And he is not a clown. He is a Professor of Law at Harvard, which has the most prestigious law school in the USA and possibly the world.
Dershowitz graduated Harvard Law School himself, and was #1 in his class. He has published a number of books, but the book on terrorism is very interesting. He traces the history, identifies the problems and offers a proposal to solve the problems. You can disagree with his proposals, but I think the history and problem identification components of the book are right on target.
I would suggest you read the book "Why Terrorism Works" and do your own analysis rather than let others posting commentaries on the web (which are also biased) do the analysis for you. Dershowitz's theories are not that radical. And the history he gives since 1968 is 100% accurate. And he is not a clown. He is a Professor of Law at Harvard, which has the most prestigious law school in the USA and possibly the world.
Dershowitz graduated Harvard Law School himself, and was #1 in his class. He has published a number of books, but the book on terrorism is very interesting. He traces the history, identifies the problems and offers a proposal to solve the problems. You can disagree with his proposals, but I think the history and problem identification components of the book are right on target.
Regna D,
I have seen those poll projections and if they hold for the next few months, Connecticut's mere 7 electoral votes in fact could decide the election. This is the beauty of democracy in action. However if it comes down to Connecticut, I believe Kerry will win the election.
I have seen those poll projections and if they hold for the next few months, Connecticut's mere 7 electoral votes in fact could decide the election. This is the beauty of democracy in action. However if it comes down to Connecticut, I believe Kerry will win the election.
Similar threads
