Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: English criticism of GWB

  1. #1
    Moderator Djoser's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Key West
    Posts
    16,343
    Thanks
    1,395
    Thanked 5,487 Times in 2,768 Posts

    Default English criticism of GWB

    This is a very nice bit of writing, I especially liked this part:

    "Then there is the sharp contrast between the self-indulgent hubris of the festivity and the fragile political victory which it celebrated. Bush was re-elected by the smallest margin in 100 years of those presidents who won a second term. His approval ratings this week are the lowest ever plumbed by any president at the date of his inauguration. But among the balls, banquets and bangs there was not a hint of the humility that would be the essential starting point for a process of healing the deep political division of his nation. The message of the jubilations could not be clearer. He won another four years and was going to enjoy them, while the other side lost and was going to have to put up with it."

    and this:

    "Lastly there is the biggest contrast of all between the smug complacency of the administration over its electoral victory and the disastrous military failure of its adventure in Iraq...

    Iraq was the flagship project of the Bush administration and has turned into its greatest disaster. Yesterday's jollities cannot conceal the brutal truth that they neither know how to make the occupation succeed nor how to end it without leaving an even worse position behind....

    But the Bush administration II that took office yesterday is stuffed with people who are in denial about the dire situation of their forces occupying Iraq. In the couple of months since election day, George Bush has promoted the very people who thought conquering Iraq was a good idea and eased out anyone with a record of worrying about the consequences....

    Freedom and liberty are universal values. The founding fathers of the US constitution, admirable though they may have been, do not hold patent rights over those concepts. They are embedded in the roots of the separate tradition of European social democracy and we must not let George Bush appropriate them to provide an ideological cover for his new imperialism."

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...395462,00.html
    You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star.
    Friedrich Nietzsche

    Free your mind, and your ass will follow.
    George Clinton

    ______________________________________

  2. #2
    Veteran Member myssi's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    341
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default Re: English criticism of GWB

    "Bush was re-elected by the smallest margin in 100 years of those presidents who won a second term"... There were only six Presidents who won re-election for a 2nd term in the last 100 years.
    As for the 'smallest margin' I assume they mean percentage-wise.... The 1916 election was won
    by less than 600,000 votes.... Bush won re-election by over 3.3 million votes.
    I wonder what we could say about vote margins in the UK?
    Who really cares about the Guardian's opinions anyway?

  3. #3
    Moderator Djoser's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Key West
    Posts
    16,343
    Thanks
    1,395
    Thanked 5,487 Times in 2,768 Posts

    Default Re: English criticism of GWB

    Quote Originally Posted by myssi
    Who really cares about the Guardian's opinions anyway?
    Me, lol...

    But that probably has a lot to do with the fact that I agree with this piece.

    I actually do like to read foreign opinion, as well as a little of the oppostion viewpoint.
    You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star.
    Friedrich Nietzsche

    Free your mind, and your ass will follow.
    George Clinton

    ______________________________________

  4. #4
    Banned
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    B.C & USA
    Posts
    1,869
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: English criticism of GWB

    Who really cares about the Guardian's opinions anyway?
    Just how is ignoring what the international community thinks of the US effective in foriegn policy matters ? The US is part of the world, not the whole world ya know

  5. #5
    Veteran Member myssi's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    341
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default Re: English criticism of GWB

    I don't write letters to the International Tribune or Paris Times or London Observer or
    whatever telling them how to run their governments. The important thing is that
    they aren't ignoring the US... Americans are ignoring them. So that proves which
    country counts in the world. Anyway, this was a thread on American elections, so
    the foreigners don't get a vote. If we had a thread on some foreign election and
    posters were quoting American newspapers, I doubt if the citizens of those countries
    would care so much either way what the American opinions were. Except for
    their own amusement perhaps. In US matters, the US is the whole world.
    The parts of the news article quoted weren't really even about "world matters".
    And I don't know if the Guardian even represents the English opinion let alone that of
    the "international community".

  6. #6
    God/dess NinaDaisy's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Manhattan
    Posts
    3,432
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: English criticism of GWB

    Quote Originally Posted by myssi
    "Bush was re-elected by the smallest margin in 100 years of those presidents who won a second term"... There were only six Presidents who won re-election for a 2nd term in the last 100 years.
    As for the 'smallest margin' I assume they mean percentage-wise.... The 1916 election was won
    by less than 600,000 votes.... Bush won re-election by over 3.3 million votes.
    I wonder what we could say about vote margins in the UK?
    Who really cares about the Guardian's opinions anyway?
    I dunno, cuz the Brits are our ALLIES and even the majority of them disagree with us?

    This is why the world hates us...

    Anyhow, has it ever occurred to you that THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE in the U.S. now than in 1916?

    Also, since the U.S. wields so much power around the world, nearly every single global policy decision that we makes has a ripple effect to the rest of the international community. So until the U.S. secedes into it's own planet (or GWB succeeds in taking over the world) we're still part of the international communitiy, since there's, like, other countries on this planet too. I think approximately 51% of all "Amurricans" forget that at times.

    I don't mind if people disagree with me, but for Pete's sake at least be well-informed.
    "She has written so well, and marvellously well, that I was completely ashamed of myself as a writer...But this girl, who is to my knowledge very unpleasant and we might even say a high-grade bitch, can write rings around all of us who consider ourselves as writers"

    Ernest Hemingway on writer, aviation pioneer and horse trainer Beryl Markham


  7. #7
    Veteran Member myssi's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    341
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default Re: English criticism of GWB

    Less people in the US in 1916? Duh. I NEVER said that there were more. At least be
    well-informed!!
    I was talking about a vague statistical reference mentioned in an article and seeking to
    clarify its meaning. Please re-read everything above more carefully.
    Note how contrived the stat was: only covered the six elections in the past A) 100 years
    in which B) a sitting President was re-elected and did not say how the "margin of victory" was
    calculated. Two specific conditions and a vague conclusion. Pretty sloppy. Why
    didn't they include all US Presidential elections (not just successful re-elections, not
    just the last 100 years)? Because that might have invalidated their conclusion.
    For example, in 1900 [just 104 years before the last election] a President was relected
    with a smaller percentage (and obviously smaller vote margin) than GWB.
    Why just the six elections out of 25 in the last 100 years? Why just six out of the
    50 Presidential elections in US History?
    In any case, I'd say a 3 million vote margin is a huge victory... also note he won a
    majority (over 50% of the vote)... something that Clinton did not do.

  8. #8
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: English criticism of GWB

    I dunno, cuz the Brits are our ALLIES and even the majority of them disagree with us?
    To be absolutely accurate, the majority of their NEWS MEDIA reports disagree with us. Like US news media, the political thoughts of media editors may or may not agree with the actual political thoughts of registered voters.


    Just how is ignoring what the international community thinks of the US effective in foriegn policy matters ? The US is part of the world, not the whole world ya know
    Agreed that positions of the international community do have an impact on us. However, in fairness it should pointed out that the wire services typically provide a lot of (translated) reporting from France, Germany, Russia, Al Jazeera etc. but very little (translated) reporting from, say, Israel or Taiwan or Japan or Saudi ! You're absolutely correct that there is a lot of world opinion out there. It's curious that Americans seem to only get to see 1/2 of those opinions - the 1/2 that agrees with the editorial position of US media and wire services who choose which reports to translate and rebroadcast.
    Last edited by Melonie; 01-22-2005 at 06:59 AM.

  9. #9
    Moderator Djoser's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Key West
    Posts
    16,343
    Thanks
    1,395
    Thanked 5,487 Times in 2,768 Posts

    Default Re: English criticism of GWB

    Quote Originally Posted by myssi
    I was talking about a vague statistical reference mentioned in an article...
    Not too much that's vague about it. He is less popular than any other re-elected president, on the eve of his Inauguration, in the last 100 years. Re-elected presidents, especially during wartime, typically have a larger margin of victory--meaning that there typically aren't huge portions of the population who detest and abhor what the president stands for, as is the case today.

    I think we need to look at a picture which illustrates my point (see below). That's a lot of people who don't like Bush. This might seem to be perfectly acceptable, and a part of political reality.

    But he is getting us into bad wars, bringing his own brand of religon into politics, and infringing on the civil rights of the population, three very dangerous processes, any one of which alone would be enough to send alarm bells ringing in the minds of anyone who cares about the future of this country, and the "freedom" we keep hearing about from a guy who is f*cking it up for a lot of people.

    We also keep hearing, over and over again, "You lost, now get over it!". Well, not only was the election close enough to make completely ignoring the concerns of damned near 50% of the nation a pretty short-sighted thing to do, but the righteous trumpeting of this sentiment is the epitome of the most dangerous weakness of democracy--the "Tyranny of the Majority".

    This has been the subject of much learned discourse, and I am inclined more than ever to reflect upon it now. Alexis de Toqueville and John Stuart Mill have both dedicated a fair amount of attention to this danger. Here is a good link to Mill's treatment of the issue in his On Liberty:

    http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/jsmill.htm

    "Mill also warns of a second danger to liberty, which democracies are prone to, namely, the tyranny of the majority. In a representative democracy, if you can control the majority (and get them to vote for, and elect, your candidates) then you can control everyone (because your candidates, once "democratically elected", will pass whatever laws are needed for this, as was done by Hitler's agents in the 1930s in Nazi Germany and seems to be happening today in the U.S.A.)."

    It is very dangerous to ignore this "...tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development and, if possible, prevent the formation of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own."

    This is precisely what so many of the Bush supporters are trying to do right now.

    The anti-communist witchhunts of the 50's, championed by that other 'guardian of freedom', Joseph McCarthy, were supported by a majority of people as well.

    As far as limiting the time period involved, politics in the USA are quite different from what they were 100 years ago.

    Women can vote, and television with it's devious propaganda style advertising has tremendous influence upon the voters' decision, to name but two tremendous differences.

    Though one tendency of the 19th century is in danger of making a comeback. This is the tendency to use our own moral standards as justification for war and conquest of populations who are seen as being in need of 'liberation', or chastisement for their cruelty in self-government.

    This was especially useful in justifying our genocide of the 19th century, of a population which stood in our way on the path to "Manifest Destiny". It is also coming in very handy for Bush, et al, in their efforts to make war upon the populations of the Middle East, threatening our use of their oil.
    Last edited by Djoser; 09-02-2007 at 11:38 AM.
    You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star.
    Friedrich Nietzsche

    Free your mind, and your ass will follow.
    George Clinton

    ______________________________________

  10. #10
    Featured Member Prester_John's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2003
    Location
    The Wastelands of New Jersey
    Posts
    1,839
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 14 Times in 9 Posts

    Default Re: English criticism of GWB

    Quote Originally Posted by Djoser

    But the Bush administration II that took office yesterday is stuffed with people who are in denial about the dire situation of their forces occupying Iraq. In the couple of months since election day, George Bush has promoted the very people who thought conquering Iraq was a good idea and eased out anyone with a record of worrying about the consequences....
    I would say nothing pisses me off more about Iraq and GWB then this. I, for one, saw a lot of potential good for bringing down Saddam Hussien. It was a sketchy endevor, and so much could have gone wrong with it, but unlike so many out there there were a lot of potential benefits (lets not get into that here - thats not the gist of the thread). However, GWB, Rumsfeld and company utterly ignored what the learned, seasoned MILITARY professionals said about what is needed for it to succeed. When Army commander General Eric Shinseki stated that it would take over 200,000 troops and ten years to occupy, maintain order, and fend off die-hards, and wouldnt change his assessment, he was ousted.

    My thought always was "if you are going to do this, do it right". GWB showed COLOSSAL arrogance in thinking that the numbers of troops used would be enough for the post-war period, It was enough for the war itself, not for occupation - and THAT shows how short-sighted the Administration is/was. They truly expected that the Iraqis would hail the conquring heroes, bask in the glow of freedom, and live western style democratic lives. The fact that no one anticipated the huge infrastructure mess that would take years to stabilize (its not even close to being that), as well as the fact that American troop presence in the Middle east would be a lightning rod for every Anti-American arab is utterly inexusable. The fact that they STILL think that what they are doing over there is enough utterly scares me.

    They tried to play an impossible game between carrying out a war without costing the country too much (thereby damaging public support). Just like in Viet Nam, that policy failed miserably. I have seen no evidence that the GWB Administration has a desire to learn from their mistakes.

  11. #11
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: English criticism of GWB

    John, I would sooner think that GWB and Rummy knew EXACTLY how many troops would ultimately be required to accomplish their goal in the middle east, but that they also knew that the 2001 political realities would not allow that to happen. Rather than face an 'up or down' vote on (as you put it) 'doing it right' and taking a chance of being voted down, IMHO they accepted the political reality that doing half the job was better than doing nothing at all as the Clinton administration did.

    Yes this has resulted in the deaths of nearly 1500 GI's. However, it is also arguably resulted in the avoidance or untold thousands of additional deaths of US citizens via terrorist attacks outside of the middle east. I'm also betting that with the election behind him, GWB will now use one means or another to substantially increase the number of coalition troops in the middle east in the near future.

    In fact, I'll go even farther out on that proverbial limb and speculate as to how this will go down. Once the Iraqi election is concluded this month (with the timing of that Iraqi election vs GWB's inauguration being no coincidence BTW), Iraq will arguably then have an internationally "legitimate" government in place (as opposed to the current situation where some countries and political factions consider the appointed caretaker gov't to be merely US puppets). If the head of that "legitimate" government were to ASK for more coalition troops to help clean out Iraq, this would go a long way to silence those countries and political factions who would otherwise claim that a scaling up of the Iraq war was proof of renewed US/UK imperialism. In other words, the same 'legitimate war' justification which was used for Kuwait (with a beseiged/exiled but "legitimate" Kuwaiti gov't asking for help to reclaim their country) would then apply to Iraq.
    Last edited by Melonie; 01-23-2005 at 05:12 AM.

  12. #12
    God/dess VenusGoddess's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Home
    Posts
    13,598
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 28 Times in 23 Posts

    Default Re: English criticism of GWB

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie

    Yes this has resulted in the deaths of nearly 1500 GI's. However, it is also arguably resulted in the avoidance or untold thousands of additional deaths of US citizens via terrorist attacks outside of the middle east. I'm also betting that with the election behind him, GWB will now use one means or another to substantially increase the number of coalition troops in the middle east in the near future.
    What a laugh. IRAQ WAS NOT THE ONE THAT WAS INVOLVED IN 9/11!!! WHY ARE THEY NOT DOING ANYTHING ABOUT AFGHANISTAN WHEN THAT IS THE PLACE THAT HAS THE TERRORIST CONNECTION TO 9/11?

  13. #13
    Moderator Djoser's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Key West
    Posts
    16,343
    Thanks
    1,395
    Thanked 5,487 Times in 2,768 Posts

    Default Re: English criticism of GWB

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    However, it is also arguably resulted in the avoidance or untold thousands of additional deaths of US citizens via terrorist attacks outside of the middle east...

    Iraq will arguably then have an internationally "legitimate" government in place (as opposed to the current situation where some countries and political factions consider the appointed caretaker gov't to be merely US puppets).
    Melonie, I have the utmost respect for your intelligence, but I cannot agree with either of these statements (not that this surprises you, I'm sure, lol).

    I think, if anything, the US invasion of Iraq has increased the likelihood of terrorist attacks upon the US in the near future, since almost the entire world, in addition to a very large proportion of the citizens of the US, see this invasion as unwarranted aggression under false pretenses. GWB should have stuck with kicking Afghanistan's ass. We would have proven we are not to be f*cked with--which I am 100% in favor of! And we would have probably gotten the bad guys, instead of creating thousands more.

    Furthermore, I doubt very much that anyone will respect the new government of Iraq as being anything but a puppet of the US.

    I don't expect you to agree with me, of course, lol...
    You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star.
    Friedrich Nietzsche

    Free your mind, and your ass will follow.
    George Clinton

    ______________________________________

  14. #14
    Banned
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    B.C & USA
    Posts
    1,869
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: English criticism of GWB

    Quote Originally Posted by VenusGoddess
    What a laugh. IRAQ WAS NOT THE ONE THAT WAS INVOLVED IN 9/11!!! WHY ARE THEY NOT DOING ANYTHING ABOUT AFGHANISTAN WHEN THAT IS THE PLACE THAT HAS THE TERRORIST CONNECTION TO 9/11?
    No kidding ! And why are they not going after the Saudi's (b/c King Bush is buddy buddy with them) since most of the 9/11 terrorist were Saudi and funded by Saudi's ? I'm against war in general but come on, invading Iraq because of 9/11 makes ZERO sense.

    They went after Iraq because it was pre-planned -- it's all laid out in the PNAC blueprint.

    WMD's was a lie ! Sad so many bought it hook line and sinker. Bush and compnay used peoples worst fears against them as well as using many peoples faith against them. It's called PRPOGANDA people. Lets not forget that Hitler was voted into office as well because like Bush he lied, frightened and brainwashed people to do his will.

    Fuck Goldwins law. These two situations ( Bush n co. & Nazi's) have way too much similarity not to acknowledge and talk about it.

  15. #15
    Banned BigGreenMnM's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    Virginia countryside.
    Posts
    3,299
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: English criticism of GWB

    Quote Originally Posted by Djoser
    "Then there is the sharp contrast between the self-indulgent hubris of the festivity and the fragile political victory which it celebrated. Bush was re-elected by the smallest margin in 100 years of those presidents who won a second term. His approval ratings this week are the lowest ever plumbed by any president at the date of his inauguration. But among the balls, banquets and bangs there was not a hint of the humility that would be the essential starting point for a process of healing the deep political division of his nation. The message of the jubilations could not be clearer. He won another four years and was going to enjoy them, while the other side lost and was going to have to put up with it."
    I dunno..It was a celebration party.
    I didnt see any footage of him stage diving,dancing on speakers,doing shots at the bar,and i dont think he woke up the next morning with a new tatoo and no bus money home from mexico with two strippers he grabbed at good guys in georgetown?
    It looked to me like everyone had a potato chip stuck between the cheeks of thier ass and didnt wanna move around to much in fear of it breaking.
    Kinda a lame party if ya ask me.

    But what was he supposed to do???
    Sulk?
    Mope around??
    How do you think he should have acted at HIS victory party,attended by the wining voters,not the losers??
    What would you have done different??

    "Lastly there is the biggest contrast of all between the smug complacency of the administration over its electoral victory and the disastrous military failure of its adventure in Iraq...
    can you name a war in history that was as lopsided as this??
    This is the far far other side of "military failure" in Iraq,in fact,it was a military bitch slapping,in your face,slam dunk.
    The military that affords you the freedoms you use everyday deserves its props,because they sure as shit earned them this time.
    If this were a chess game,Our military is Karpov or bobby fisher.
    Check fuckin mate!!!!
    Iraq was the flagship project of the Bush administration and has turned into its greatest disaster. Yesterday's jollities cannot conceal the brutal truth that they neither know how to make the occupation succeed nor how to end it without leaving an even worse position behind....
    The whole point is NOT to occupy!!!
    Now its a police action until we can get them to do it themselves.

    How many occupations in history have worked???(other then ours in the good ole USA)
    Sending more troops will not help.Now its time for the Iraq's to grow a freekin spine and govern thier own country.The sad part is,as fast as police can be trained,thier own people kill them.

    Freedom and liberty are universal values.
    Yes they are,but not in Iraq.


    The founding fathers of the US constitution, admirable though they may have been, do not hold patent rights over those concepts. They are embedded in the roots of the separate tradition of European social democracy and we must not let George Bush appropriate them to provide an ideological cover for his new imperialism."
    [/quote]
    "new imperialism"???
    The best he can do is 8 years.
    How many can terms can people in thier government run for??
    Who has a better chance of imperialism??
    Funny how someone standing in a country with a ROYAL FAMILY would even say that.
    Good thing Americans protect themselves against that.

  16. #16
    God/dess Casual Observer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Boston MA
    Posts
    5,670
    Thanks
    35
    Thanked 144 Times in 74 Posts

    Default Re: English criticism of GWB

    Not surprising, given the Guardian's agenda.

    That said, it's fine that other nations don't agree with American foreign policy. There's a whole organization, albeit an irrelevant one, for that kind of collective envy and disgust; it's called the UN.
    Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.

    William F. Buckley, Jr.

Similar Threads

  1. from outward appearances, GWB has become a Democrat !
    By Melonie in forum Member Boards
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 01-30-2007, 04:45 AM
  2. GWB / Darth Vader Comparisons
    By Richard_Head in forum Political Poo
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-22-2005, 07:38 PM
  3. A differing view of GWB
    By primetime21 in forum Political Poo
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-13-2005, 09:36 AM
  4. Some conservative criticism of GWB
    By Djoser in forum Political Poo
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-22-2005, 12:02 AM
  5. GWB and his constituents' Religious Agenda
    By Djoser in forum Political Poo
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 11-17-2004, 11:47 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •