“Men are so simple and so much inclined to obey immediate needs that a deceiver will never lack victims for his deceptions.” - Machiavelli
One has trouble remembering a world before George W, before 9/11 and before so many innocent people needlessly perished in such a senseless slaughter as a result of that treachery and as a consequence of that treachery. But to do it differently requires some re-jigging; some dampening down of the jingoistic fervour and tub thumbing righteousness to actually see what has really occurred, who benefits and how exactly it could have been done better in such a charged atmosphere of retribution, holler of “Hallelujahs”, hands over hearts whilst hurtling headlong towards a prophesied Armageddon.
In a “Sliding Doors” scenario how does it play out differently?
“Politics have no relation to morals.” - Machiavelli
Let me just say that none of these first four points have anything to do with Bush. However they need to be attended to as George Bush certainly benefited from them.
In 2000 it can be argued that Al Gore won that election. He certainly out polled GWB in the popular vote across America. However due to the college voting system, narrowing down to a couple of counties in Jeb Bush’s Florida (honestly, I can almost hear a fucking banjo every time I say the name ‘Jeb’), to a still dubious Supreme Court decision, who for the first time was not judging aspects of legislation but of an actual ruling on the legitimacy of punch marks in voting cards: as a result George won those counties, won Florida and thus the entire available votes from that state.
The very first thing done differently is overhaul the voting system in America. It should not be on the first Tuesday, rather the Saturday so it makes it easier for everyone to vote: Especially the poorer voter. It should be preferential voting not college voting and winner takes only what they have legitimately won thus eliminating the huge voting blocks set up by California, Texas, Florida etc. should a candidate win by a whisker. It also gives greater voting voice to independent and smaller parties yet preferences are then distributed fairly to the voter’s real preference. Also that would ensure some fuckwit like Ralph Nader doesn’t shave a close vote with good intentions. Rather under preferential he would receive his votes and they would then be passed on to the voter’s next preference.
The Supreme Court should never have ruled on such a thing. It was not in their mandate to do so. However, had they been asked to rule on the legitimacy of the American voting system, that is another story they really could have sunk their legal teeth into. For a supposed democracy, the USA really has one of the most undemocratic systems possible as it favours the affluent, the two party system and it allows a concentration of advertising, pork barrelling and generally politicking in to small, influential areas that can be enough to swing the entire state vote.
1. Review and amend college voting system to preferential voting.
2. Change voting from first Tuesday to first Saturday in November.
Also done differently –
3.Clinton should have given greater visibility to Gore in his second term to build Gore’s public profile and thus chances for election rather than stepping out behind Clinton’s shadow. If Bubba had have kept his pecker in his pocket instead of banging Monica Lewinsky wouldn’t have done Gore’s campaign too much harm either. The 2000 election was so close this could have made the difference.
4. The Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to be making legal decisions with regards the veracity of indentations on voting cards. They are there to interpret the legal nuances of legislation, precedent, court decisions and statutes. Not whether or not an indentation on a voting card from a buggered polling machine is legitimate or not. Also not to complicate the decision as to whether or not it is a state or federal issue: It should be a unified federal issue, end of story.
“Before all else, be armed.” - Machiavelli
Before there was 9/11, within weeks of Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld taking office, there was a push to raise defence spending. This was soundly and sharply defeated. However after 9/11 this changed so dramatically that raising questions about the astronomical hike in emergency defence spending seemed unpatriotic. Indeed, many questions seemed unpatriotic. Why the Bill of Rights and the US constitution were being massacred by the Patriot Act? Why is Saddam Hussein being so closely associated with Osama Bin Laden when such a coupling is the western world was equivalent of the Pope and Hugh Hefner? Why is it that if supposed 9/11 terrorists are recruited from Egypt and Saudi Arabia are the immediate target Afghanistan and Iraq?
“It is not titles that honour men, but men that honour titles.” - Machiavelli
There should be nothing simpler than to do what is right. However this is not really the case when it comes to US foreign policy which has a long history of spin; making what is fundamentally self seeking and in some cases down right nefarious, almost touching the realms of political alchemy- it is then packaged and sold to a gullible American nation as something wholesome. Unfortunately for many on the receiving end, empowering the Shah of Iran was folly and by the time of his downfall – with massive US assistance, having funded the fourth largest army in the world, made a ruthless dictator with the third largest secret police phenomenally wealthy and inherently corrupt - worked not only against Iran’s populace but thirty years later there is an overwhelming rhetoric coming out of Iran to even the ledger. But with a long standing policy of trampling their own values set out in the constitution and Bill of Rights abroad, the US have systematically and indeed hypocritically destroyed the democratic, civil and legal rights in many a country it wishes to exert influence by supporting these homicidal megalomaniacs.
“Whoever conquers a free town and does not demolish it commits a great error and may expect to be ruined himself.” - Machiavelli
The CIA’s assassination of the democratically elected Allende in Chile and supporting to power that murderous prick Pinochet’s military junta didn’t just destroy democracy in Chile but countless lives he imprisoned and tortured. The reason why the US is unpopular in many countries is that it has done the wrong thing by the citizens of those countries. The continuing practice of elevating and arming murderous dictators to then invade the country to depose them after they have all but destroyed everything, raped and pillage its citizens and systematically murdered and tortured with US simply watching and often supporting, does not sit well. The US forces are always on the side of the righteous and lose no opportunity to let the world and especially its own people know that. Some of the time America has done the right thing but many times they are cleaning up their own creation and their own excrement. Put simply: You can not be expecting gratitude if it was you who let the fox into the hen house only to come back later and destroy the fox after it has devastated the place. That does not win plaudits: It will never will plaudits. Fully confessing past sins may buy a reprieve along with a massive class action seeking compensation. The problem is not just in the history of US foreign policy destroying the rights of so many people around the globe; the real kicker comes in the fact that the US government is in a constant state of denial of behaving abominably; for any statement from the White House would indicate they’re utterly oblivious to their own actions. It’s like a verse out of Gilbert & Sullivan’s Princess Ida with King Gama blithely singing -
“If you give me your attention, I will tell you what I am:
I'm a genuine philanthropist — all other kinds are sham.
Each little fault of temper and each social defect
In my erring fellow-creatures, I endeavour to correct.
To all their little weaknesses I open people's eyes;
And little plans to snub the self-sufficient I devise;
I love my fellow creatures — I do all the good I can —
Yet ev'rybody says I'm such a disagreeable man!
And I can't think why!”
Let me try and explain why other countries don’t like to be told they are basically crap. George Bush is not alone in behaving badly nor is he alone in creating this senseless war but in trying to polish this turd and calling it unavoidable, in America’s best interest and a “mission accomplished” victory, is simply not right. The fact is that this path to war was very avoidable and republican unilateral actions towards the UN made it even more deplorable and more avoidable than most Americans realize or accept. Human beings do not like to admit they were wrong. Presidents of the United States certainly do not want to admit such a failure. So one-two-three-four what are we fighting for as the cause is so correct and so God damned righteous?
5. I would not have gone to war without a clearly defined enemy. Terrorism is not a clearly defined enemy. Bush should have made greater efforts to overhaul of US foreign policy where the supporting and promoting of right winged fascists to power needs to be tempered. Especially against popularly elected leaders: It may not be popular to the US but it is to that country. Time and again dictators have risen out of the democratic debris left by US interference at one time or another. These include the Shah, Saddam Hussein, Suharto, Marcos, Saudi royal family, Kuwait’s royal family, Murbarak, Pinochet and let’s not forget how successive governments in Colombia are assisted by US military aid for supposedly fighting drugs and terrorism but really ensuring rebels in Colombia’s south don’t get the upper hand. Some would argue that Bush is attempting to rid the world of exactly this that has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. This would be indeed noble had the US first not promoted the Sunni Saddam in Iraq to counter Iran Shiites and helped arm the Sunni Taliban in Afghanistan to ensure a more stable region, especially against the possibility of further Russian invasion or to quell Mujahideen warlords. Its a murky world made more so by Americans funding some incredibly suspect individuals. Some may ague Bush has overhauled foreign policy – I would argue that he has simply pumped the same policies full of testosterone, smacked it on the asre with a wild “Yi Haa!” and really let this gonzo attitude loose in the world.
“The art of war is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected” - Sun Tzu
It was abundantly obvious after 9/11 the US were looking for something to pummel. It really didn’t matter who. Quite frankly it could have been Fiji and the Maldives for all the US citizens cared as most Americans really don’t know who or where one nation is from another anyway. Tell the average Fox listener there were terrorists in Mauritius they would have happily high fived a cluster bomb over Club Med so frenzied was the jingoistic righteous rage felt by many Americans late 2001 and of course rocket fuelled by their media at the time. Bush’s approval rating would soar so long as he behaved like John Wayne or Rambo which of course he did. As it turned out, Afghanistan and Iraq were the lucky countries who were to be decimated.
Afghanistan because it looks like a missile test site anyway and supposedly it harboured the still illusive Saudi Wahhabi Osama Bin Laden: The State of the Union in 2006 proudly claimed that little girls could now go to school in Afghanistan…if only there was a school still standing. Oh yes, I am sure that was the reason for unloading more bombs than fell in the Second World War. Somehow it was forgotten that the terrorists were Saudi and Egyptian. Behind Israel the Egyptians receives more aid than any other country from the US. Let’s put this in dollar terms. Since Yom Kippur War sent the whole region tits up, Camp David helped restore some stability and Sadat was so openly slain, the US has sent $50 billion to ensure Egypt remains under control and loyal. More than half of this is military aid.
Saudi Arabian royal family has purchased since 1995 over 49 billion dollars of military equipment from the US as well as guaranteeing oil supplies. Defence contracts and military agreements means that the US not simply support but actively come to the aid of these two governments that are unpopular and in the case of Egypt, hanging on by the skin of its teeth. So when a group of zealots from Egypt and Saudi Arabia supposedly band together and fly planes into the twin towers, the pentagon and aiming to wipe out the White House, who the fuck does one retaliate to? Gosh, that’s a curly question. Neither Egypt nor Saudi Arabia came up in the Congress, the Senate or more relevantly the White House. Personally I find that baffling considering so many were arrested after Sadat’s assassination, Egyptians ploughing planes into the twin tower doesn’t even warrant an inquest by the Egyptian government? Right? If this was not a CIA plot or some ruse to divert massive grants, military contracts and funding into the coffers of the US military suppliers and contractors, I would be asking these countries, what the fuck is going on!
6. Bush should have been more critical of Egypt and Saudi Arabia. On July 24th 2003, Congress published a report on the September 11 attacks but the White House omitted or censored major portions (reportedly about Saudi Arabia) for “national security” reasons. This is bullshit. And what is more it looks like a cover up and I certainly would have done that diferently.
7. Bush needed to be more transparent as how contracts are delivered and the way some of these military contracts run dangerously close to collusion. Business and corruption have been friends since the dawn of time – the problem with spending trillions of dollars on a spurious war against terror is that carpet bagging and war profiteering tends to cloud genuine spending. Obviously Halliburton and Blackwater rear their ugly heads each time this subject is broached but there are countless other organisations and companies under the pump as to how these contracts were obtained and what exactly taxpayers got for their buck.
8. Bush should not have attacked Afghanistan unilaterally much less attack them at all as there was no evidence that Afghanistan had attacked America. There was also no real evidence they were harbouring any more terrorists than any other country. In reality America let loose an unprovoked attack on the citizens of a sovereign nation. Imagine the indignation of Americans had a handful of Argentineans and Bolivians launched a terrorist attack against Kabul and it was the Taliban’s thinking that the US was harbouring the Argentinean mastermind of that attack. Without waiting, without going through the UN, without asking for explanation it was just assumed the US was harbouring the mastermind. Afghanistan then proceeded to bomb the bejesus out of America and of course Americans. And not one country came to your aid. Seven years later, your government has been deposed, many of your citizens have lost loved ones, many more injured and more again homeless- and the objective has still not been achieved as the mastermind has vanished like smoke in a gale.
9. Bush should stop weapons testing in foreign lands and in this case, occupied countries. There has always been an open suspicion that Afghanistan has been used for weapons testing. So founded is this that its even used in scenes, of all things, Ironman. No one blinks and says, that wouldn’t be happening! In fact, it is such a natural scene as to be frightening. The scene is alarming on many levels but the most frightening is that Americans can simply use a foreign land as their own. In the same breath America still tries to depict itself as something benevolent and good for the average Afghan. I would like to see the Chinese military take over the US and weapons test in the Grand Canyon and see how the average American views it. I would be fucking flabbergasted if any US citizen would describe that as benevolent. Now granted that a scene from Ironman is an unreliable source however there are many other sources, especially on the net about this subject. I would not weapons test in foreign lands and have such total disregard for the locals.
“It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted with the evils of war that can thoroughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on.” - Sun Tzu.
One of the primary reason for invading Iraq was that Saddam Hussein supposedly was about to threaten regional stability with weapons of mass destruction (WMD) which soon proved a complete porky pie as UN weapon’s inspector Hans Blix suggested it would be after years of fruitless searching. After the Gulf War, after years of embargo there was nothing. Were weapons that could really threaten US shores be hiding in Syria…maybe but a level head would say more likely not. It is almost an unwritten republican policy not to support the UN. Now one has to be observant enough to realise that the UN by and large is a toothless tiger that has a gluttonous appetite for long lunches and diplomatic bullshit. It is where countries that you wouldn’t piss on if they were on fire have a say. However despite it being riddled with mendacity and intrigue, it is the only forum that truly represents all nations. It also has a charter, despite how flawed and in many ways useless it may appear at times, that is on the surface a testimony to the better side of human nature. In short, as seemingly fucked as it is, the US should never ignore the UN and as frustrating as it is, should never choose a unilateral approach when a multilateral solution can be reached. Chief U.S. weapons inspector David Kay resigned in January 2004, saying he didn’t believe Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction ever existed.On October 6, 2004 new Chief U.S. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer reported that Iraq had no biological or chemical weapons and no nuclear program before the U.S. invasion; in fact, Duelfer finds no evidence that Iraq had produced any WMDs after 1991.
10. I wouldn’t be lying to the American people
“There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.” - Machiavelli
Another reason for invasion was that “Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator who slaughtered his own people.” He was ruthless and slaughtering long before the Gulf War conquered his country and the UN & US decided to keep him ensconced in power after that multilateral arse whipping. He was ruthless and slaughtering when the US were shipping him arms and entrenching power in his rule to marginalize both the Kurds and Shiites after the fall of the Shah. When the US was arming Saddam Hussein’s war against Iran, they knew then he was a mass murderer. To suddenly use this as a catalyst to overthrow a recognized and unfortunately legitimate government is really the height of hypocrisy. It is made even more hypocritical by the fact that many of the same players involved in arming and supporting Saddam Hussein were now decrying his actions and wanting him torn down. It was a bit rich considering at one time Rumsfeld and Cheney had worked in the Ford, Reagan and Bush senior administrations pumping money into the coffers of the Saudis, Egyptians, the Shah and Saddam knowing full well how harshly they treated their own citizens- especially those who didn’t see eye to eye. So to then launch an attack against Iraq, citing Saddam Hussein’s murderous behaviour as a catalyst is nothing short of absolute bullshit. It should also be noted that Kuwait’s ruling class was in fact elevated to power by the west after the 1919 Paris Peace Conference: In one of those arbitrary moments Iraq simply lost its access to the sea and hey presto Kuwait was suddenly a sovereign country supplying oil to the west. When Saddam Hussein cited the reason for invading Kuwait as the land historically being part of Iraq, in this particular case he had a valid point. But yet again you can’t just unilaterally invade foreign lands. That is why what has to be good for the goose has to be good for the gander. You cannot decry Saddam Hussein’s decision to invade Kuwait, especially as he had more validity in that invasion than America would ever have in invading Iraq or Afghanistan for their reasons. I would be multilateral in my approach to international matters, especially going to war, not unilateral as was the case here.
11. I would acknowledge past US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. And what that really means in the context of this conflict.
The constant episode of Saddam Hussein gassing “his own people” when he killed 5000 Kurds: Let us put that into context. The Kurds have been seeking autonomy since the dawn of time and over the last two hundred years have been right royally screwed by friends and foe alike. At one stage the Americans armed and incited both Shiite and Kurd rebel action only to have Kissinger do a back flip, support the Sunni minority thus leaving both groups defenseless against a vengeful maniac. Neither Saddam Hussein nor the Kurds would view the other as, “their own people.” Saddam Hussein would rather have been labeled with leprosy than being called a Kurd. We all knew he was a turd but Kurd, never. It should be noted too that the Kurds currently hold de facto autonomy in Iraqs north. They rule without recognized borders and without recognized sovereignty. Russia and Iran do not want a recognized Kurdistan. More importantly and the reason why they will never get an established homeland is that Turkey will oppose it. Just as they opposed it at the Paris Peace conference all those years ago, Turkey is a major key in NATO. The Kurds are not. Sooner or later the Kurds aspirations of autonomy will come to a head and unfortunately if you think 5000 Kurds being gassed is a bit grim, wait until they find themselves in a political pincher grip between Turkey and Iran with the Americans pulling the rug out from under them one more time.
12. I would explain the historical context of the Kurds, including that they are Sunni although ethnically different and with their early assistance helped Saddam take power from the majority Shiites (60% of Iraq is Shiite). I would also be explaining that the gas Saddam used on the Kurds was purchased from the US.
The third main reason for invading Iraq was the expanding war against terrorism. This in itself is fatally flawed. Firstly there has never been a clear definition of a terrorist as opposed to one who is politically marginalized and economically disadvantaged. There has been such a broad brush approach to what terrorism is and who is a terrorist that no real debate and certainly no rational debate has really been entered into. Hysterical name calling, character assassinations, every Arab tarred with the same brush and a great deal of misinformation and propaganda has muddied the waters even more than the inherent ignorance most Americans have towards individual Arabic cultures, countries, the differing Islamic religions: Eventually all you have is hatred and a want to kill. And with a seemingly ignorant and inarticulate President behaving more like a good ol’ boy at a tar and feather party, for good reason most people in Arabic countries should feel apprehensive of the Bush administration.
13. Propaganda is propaganda and it is not truth. It is design to whip up emotion and spread half truths and lies. After 9/11 this was all that was heard; especially from the president. I would not have done this. I think I would have been a little calmer in my rhetoric.
So how do you really do things differently?
When considering that you are about to spend trillions of dollars, plunge your country into generational debt, kill and maim thousands of your own soldiers and tens of thousands of innocent people of the countries you are invading while making hundreds of thousands effectively homeless refugees in their own land, let’s face it, there has to be a few better options than that festering scenario available to you.
Trillions of dollars buys an awful lot of good will and the fact is that acts of kindness genuinely go a long way. You cannot imagine that every person in either Iraq or Afghanistan supported their leadership. Nor did they have anything to do with any attacks. In fact it was established time and again from congressional committees that there were no WMD’s and certainly no link between Saddam and 9/11 or indeed Saddam and Osama Bin Laden.
14 You could make the world a happier, safer place by being truly benevolent. And even if it didn’t work it would certainly work better than this costly fuck up. And while the dollar cost is astronomical the emotional cost is far reaching and the damage US have inflicted on long term trust and relations is immeasurable. I would not have attacked either Iraq or Afghanistan rather I would have worked towards truly bringing them closer. And I would have done this through the UN and what is more I would fully support and fund the UN. It is a useless police force but it is atleast a neutral one. The more funded the UN, the more effective it becomes and certainly when it comes to those tricky moral decisions such as invading other countries, it is a harder forum to convince than a group bible belt morons hell bent on revenge at all cost.
One of the unfortunate off shoots of the 9/11 attack, whoever orchestrated it, was the substantial loss of freedom experienced not just in America but generally throughout the Western World. Coupled with this over reaction to strip civil liberties and legal rights away from hard fought constitutions came the incessant terror threats fuelling the paranoia and general feel that safety was more important than democracy or worse still that somehow the two were mutually exclusive and could never be achieved without sacrifice of one to the other. This of course is a gross misconception and what is even more damaging, so many media outlets seemed willing to drag America back to the days of McCarthy fear mongering that at any moment there will be a nuclear strike, biological or chemical attack or something else is going to blow up. This of course worked greatly to the president’s advantage as the country galvanized behind him as they faced an uncertain future combating what was essentially the “Boogieman.” In the process massive funding suddenly rubber stamped though congress along with the real threat to the average American’s freedom. Homeland Security Act and even more draconian, Patriot Act ensured that if under a sniff of suspicion any citizen immediately lost civil and legal rights. To be included among this civil rights horror, the doing away with habeas corpus and reasonable rights pertaining to search and questioning: Now under the Patriot Act, a person could simply disappear like Stalinist Russia, being sent away without a scintilla of evidence for an infinite period. Not surprisingly the right winged argued that dramatic measures are required in dramatic times. I argue the more dramatic the times the greater the need for sanity, calm and not throwing babies out with the bath water. In this case, rights that has taken hundreds of years to win and in no time flat is all but destroyed: Suddenly Americans are having their phone calls bugged, their library habits scrutinized, their friends interrogated. Joseph McCarthy didn’t die; the fucker just took a break and came back with renewed vim to make a nation divided, edgy and indeed less lovable and certainly less free.
15. I would not have introduced the Patriot Act under any circumstances although unifying the various justice and law enforcement departments was long overdue.
“All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.” - Sun Tzu
There is something truly terrifying about being incarcerated yet the right wing see this as such a natural thing as to appear almost blasé. In effect they work on the theory that if you do the wrong thing, you should be imprisoned and the worse the crime the longer the term. But then there is that prickly issue called “the assumption of innocence” to be considered. This legal pearl, lost on many right wingers has been around for sometime now and in many respects it is the lynch pin that holds a just judicial system together. So with out supposedly torturing you, questioning you for years on end, never charging you, denying you a quick and fair trial by your peers, denying you full legal representation and generally not treating you as a civilized human being under the assumption of innocent until actually proven guilty, is of course not what the Bill of Rights, The US constitution, legal precedent, Supreme Court rulings and UN charter of Universal Rights is really all about. It is said that military justice is an oxymoron and that it has brought as much progress to justice as military music has to the arts. After witnessing the shameful years of Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, even that might be giving it more kudos than it deserves. Along with the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib has been an open wound that if the US is lucky, in years to come may turn into a perpetual scab. The reality is that it has inflicted so much damage beyond those unfortunate enough to be caught in its web that every time an American is taken hostage, treated abysmally, tortured, humiliated and held for a ludicrously long period of time without charge anywhere in the world and should the US cry out for justice, the names of Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib will rear their ugly head again and again.
16 I would not have sanctioned torture and disregarded the Geneva Convention. I believe that the moment we decide to employ any and all methods, no matter how evil, to fight evil we do in fact become indistinguishable from the evil we combat.
Civil Rights and humanitarian groups around the world from Amnesty to Red Cross decry the US military’s treatment of these human beings captured, detained, tortured and still so many never released or even charged or tried. Americans need to be asking themselves what is the definition of a war crime and why this does not fall into that definition. They should also be asking how exactly this appalling treatment of people makes America a safer place. With the pending decision of the US Supreme Court on the legitimacy on these military courts and the continued holding without charge under close scrutiny, combined with a previous ruling allowing foreign nationals to seek compensation through the American legal system should prove interesting. If the Supreme Court declares the military court in Cuba illegal, and they probably will, those inmates at Camp X-Ray will be lining up to go home and start legal proceedings against their captors. And against the Bush administration. If that should ever happen, it is the thin end of the wedge because the next stop after that is war crimes. Then comes the full Senate inquiry into this fiasco including of course war contracts. It will be like a soap opera without end.
“Making no mistakes is what establishes the certainty of victory, for it means conquering an enemy that is already defeated.” - Sun Tzu
Without even citing the obvious that the US should not have invaded either Afghanistan or Iraq, you then have to ask, if the US are supposedly bringing democracy to these countries they must ipso facto be bringing a judicial system that carries the hallmarks of the Bill of Right and therefore an assumption of innocence. It must also have all the proper legal procedures including habeas corpus and not torturing detainees. But then the argument pops up time and again, they were captured in a theatre of war and fall under military justice. Think about it. Your country is bombed mercilessly, invaded, you are wandering around when the soldiers arrive, arrested, sent to Cuba or many other prison camps around the globe on US bases and territories, you are tortured, denied trial, legal representation, family and six years later you are still there, still not charged, still not going to trial, still in a foreign land. It is fucking outrageous! There cannot be one compassionate human being who could really in good conscience condone that. To simply say, oh that’s military and they are terrorists and deserve no better…how do you know? No one knows. You certainly have to doubt the total veracity of statements made by the Bush administration and the generals. There could quite easily be some poor schmoo in the wrong place at the wrong time and quite frankly it must be like being abducted and tortured by aliens. But there is no charge, no trial, no legal representation, no contact with family, no assumption of innocence. It is everything the constitution fought against. Everything the UN charter of human rights brands as evil. It is everything supposedly US soldiers are fighting against yet there they are, incarcerating, torturing and never charging or bringing to trial thousands of detainees who are there under no more than suspicion. In May of 2004, the US Army acknowledged it was investigating at least 35 cases of abuse or torture of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thirty-five? Obviously the other 10000 or so were been treated splendidly.
“We cannot attribute to fortune or virtue that which is achieved without either. “ -
Machiavelli
Imagine just for a moment the US was carpet bombed, invaded and fathers, brothers, sons, friends suddenly started disappearing and were tortured or simply put on planes and taken to military bases overseas and held indefinitely without charge or trial. See if that injustice didn’t come up in a State of the Union address. Yet somehow it’s okay - because why? America has freed Iraq and Afghanistan from monsters that restricted individual’s human rights, tortured the populace, killed and terrified families and discarded fair legal process. So what the fuck are the Americans doing and how on earth could any subsequent administration even hope to build a bridge of forgiveness between that and future trust from the citizens of these countries. And in case you need further convincing why the Iraqis are not going to like Americans for a long time to come, only July last year this gem was lobbed onto the Iraqi populace so that Americans can endear themselves even more. Executive Order 13438: This is to do with the “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq?” The order asserts the government’s power (or American military power not just the official Iraqi government) to confiscate the property “of persons determined to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people.” If that is not broad enough!
I truly doubt that even when and indeed if the US withdraw from Iraq that it will stop there. Long after Bush has left office, this is going to be the gift that keeps on giving. Or more to the point the nightmare that will refuse to go away. What will be most interesting is how Americans look at their part- especially those who voted for Bush’s second term. Will they acknowledge that he was wrong for not just his country but the world? I doubt it because if you were stupid enough to vote him back in you are certainly too stupid to accept the damage you have helped cause. But in reality you cannot vote for a president who was clearly doing the wrong thing in 2004 and expect any change by 2008.
Away from the war let us look at the litany of other horrible actions this President has presided over that I would certainly not have instigated and in many cases, some good previous legislation I wouldn’t have tampered with at all. Here are just 61 of hundreds of “things” I would have done differently or simply not done.
Social
1. On the day of his inauguration back in January 2001 he immediately halted through his Chief of Staff Andrew Card a sixty-day moratorium on all new health, safety, and environmental regulations issued in the final days of the Clinton administration. So he was off to a cracking start.
2. He of course took no time at all to attack Roe v Wade and in the process of stopping funding to abortions and abortion counseling boards he attacked a fundamental woman’s right.
3. In 2003 Congress banned late-term abortions.
4. In 2004 the FDA blocked RU-486, the “morning after pill,” from being sold over the counter.
5. Ashcroft orders background checks to gun licenses to be destroyed one day after being granted instead of 90 days…oh shit! Bang!
6. In 2004 Bush and the House Republicans allowed the federal ban on assault weapons to expire. Bang! Bang! In that year over 30000 Americans died from gun related incidents and over 100000 were injured. That second amendment, it’s a beauty isn’t?
7. Banning of same sex marriages.
8. Bush refuses to join international treaty to limited sales of small arms and light weapons
9. Bush refuses to sign a treaty to limited chemical and biological warfare much to the disgust of the international community especially UN & EU
10. Bans stem cell research
11. Bush’s Education Secretary Rod Paige states US schools should have “strong Christian values”
12. One third of $15 billion AIDS bills are set aside to educate people not to have sex.
Freedoms
1. Signs Patriot Act in late October 2001
2. Justice department refuses to identify over 1000 detained after 9/11
3. Ashcroft sanctions recorded conversation between attorney/client in possible terrorist matters thus removing attorney/client privilege by mere suspicion.
4. Blocks the release of Presidential records thus protecting his father’s presidency to closer scrutiny.
5. Bush pulls out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty unilaterally without congressional debate, permission or request.
6. From late 2001, Justice Department is allowed to hold illegal immigrants indefinitely.
7. In January 2002, first Afghan inmates arrive at Guantanamo Bay where Rumsfeld declares they have “no rights under the Geneva Convention” In other words; they can be tortured, held indefinitely without trial or representation. And they were. And they still are.
8. Alberto Gonzales states there is new paradigm with regards the war on terror making the Geneva Convention antiquated and irrelevant. In plain speak, FUCK OFF WORLD, America will torture people if we like.
9. Ashcroft removes restrictions on domestic spying by the FBI. New guidelines permit monitoring of political and religious groups (or more accurately – Islamic groups) without probable cause.
10. Bush voids the U.S. signature on the treaty to establish an International Criminal Court. What this means is no American can be tried in this international court. From a legal point of view, it is a disgrace. It also relates to no American can be tried for war crimes. This may be filed under “planning ahead”
11. Bush in 2003, withheld $34 million in UN funding
12. Bush gives consent to both insurance and pharmaceutical companies to view confidential medical records without patient permission thus removing doctor/patient confidentiality.
13. In 2003 there are approximately 13,000 Arab and Muslim immigrants in deportation proceedings as a result of special registration programs; none have been charged in connection to terrorism.
14. In November 2003 the FBI were forced to admit they had been collecting intelligence on antiwar protesters.
15. During a congressional recess in 2003, Bush appointed conservative judge Charles Pickering, despite his nomination twice being blocked by the Senate - to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
16. Sinclair Broadcasting refused to air “Nightline” broadcast because they insisted on reading the names of the U.S. dead in Iraq.
17. In June 2004 the US Attorney General John Ashcroft point blankly refused to give the Senate Judiciary Committee a Justice Department memo that outlined the legal justification for the torture of suspected terrorists. And while he was at it he may as well pissed on the Geneva Convention and the Bill of Rights.
18. Bush administration lawyers attempted to block lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers. They agued that consumers should not seek damages for injuries received from products approved by the FDA. This of course was designed to limit greatly some massive class actions looming.
19. In July 2004 Congress passed resolution declaring that genocide was taking place in the Darfur. Washington Post stated that action taken by the Bush administration to stop the killing was “murderously modest.” And true to form have effectively done fuck all ever since as it would put them into direct conflict with the Chinese who are supporting the unbelievably corrupt Sudanese government. The effort to really step up to the plate on a humanitarian level from Bush has been token at best in this matter and lamentably embarrassing in reality.
20. In June 2005 the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government can prosecute medical marijuana users even in states which have laws permitting medical marijuana
21. In 2006 US Congress and Senate approved the Military Commissions Act, which authorises torture and strips non- US citizen detainees suspected of terrorist ties of their right of habeas corpus. It also empowers US presidents at their discretion to declare any US citizen as enemy combatants and therefore subject them to detention without charge or due process. Nice work George. Please explain the difference between that and Stalin. Or more to the point Saddam.
22. The following month, John Warner’s Defense Authorization Act is enacted. This peach allows a president to declare a public emergency and station US military troops anywhere in America. It also includes the right of a President to take control of state based National Guard units without consent of the governor or other local authorities. The law authorises the presidential deployment of US troops to round-up and detain “potential terrorists”, “illegal aliens” and “disorderly” citizenry.
23. And it just gets creepier… In May of 2007 National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51) establishes a new post-disaster plan. A disaster in case you are wondering, is not simply defined as the reelection of a complete and utter prick but as any incident, natural or man-made, resulting in extraordinary mass casualties, damage or disruption. If this happens it places the president in charge of all three branches of government. This non-congressional directive overrides the National Emergencies Act which gives Congress power to determine the duration of a national emergency. So get your money out on the table now; do we have an election come November or will there be a coup by disaster and this fucker is still going to be there? If you are thinking that he would be happy to leave, think again.
Environment
1. In February of 2001 he reversed Clinton’s laws protecting 60 million acres of US forests from logging and new roads being ploughed through them.
2. He also opened up hitherto pristine protected areas of the Artic wilderness to oil exploration.
3. He reversed a campaign pledge re carbon emissions from power plants and effectively allowed these power plants to do what they liked regardless of environmental damage.
4. He told the world they could stick their Kyoto agreement (pertaining to greenhouse emissions and levels) up their collective klackers.
5. Limited lawsuits against those killing endangered species.
6. Reversed a Clinton decision thus allowing for higher arsenic levels into US drinking water supplies
7. Cheney releases his “National Energy Policy” report that calls for weaker environmental regulations and outrageous fucking subsidies for the oil, gas, coal, and nuclear power industries. Cheney refuses to make minutes public record.
8. “Clear Skies” policy is released calling for “voluntary” reductions by major polluters who of course LOL
9. EPA alters its definition of “fill material” – this allows coal companies to dump rubble from mining into valleys and streams.
10. In September 2002 Bush allowed logging of previously protected old growth forests.
11. Two days before Christmas 2003,Bush opened up a further 300,000 acres of old-growth timber in Alaska’s Tongass National Forest to logging.
12. The following month in 2004, the Interior Department opened close on 9 million acres of wilderness on Alaska’s North Slope for oil drilling.
13. Bush makes exempt millions of acres under the amended “Clean Water Act” that can now effectively be polluted wetlands.
Union & Business
1. He soon signed anti union orders thus eroding workers rights.
2. He limited workers rights to claim RSI compensation.
3. He limited worker’s right to strike; this was especially relevant to employees of North West Airlines in March 2001.
4. In 2004 the Republican-controlled National Labor Relations Board reversed an earlier decision and ruled that graduate teaching assistants at private universities did not have the right to organise unions.
5. Bush repeals “Responsible Contractor Rule” pertaining to safety and product standard rules re government contracts
6. Transportation Security Administration prevents 56,000 airport screeners from becoming a union
7. On the 8th March 2003 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers awarded a no-bid contract worth upwards of $7 billion to a Halliburton subsidiary for fighting possible oil well fires in Iraq. On the 19th March 2003, America begins bombing the crap out of Iraq.
8. Special “over time” amendments are enacted effectively stripping millions of dollars of overtime payments away from white collar employees.
9. Oil companies in Iraq become exempt of both prosecution and liability shortly after “Mission Accomplished”
Finance
1. In May of 2001 Bush abandons a crack down on shonky off shore accounts, thus winding up years of federal work and producing a flood of tax evasion among the very wealth to off shore accounts.
2. In 2001 he passed a $1.3 Trillion tax cuts that greatly benefit the wealthy
3. SEC chairman William Donaldson unbelievably endorses a House bill that seeks to actually limit the ability of state regulators to oversee the securities industry.
4. A week before the 2004 election, aboard Air Force One, with no public around Bush signed $136 billion corporate tax cut bill. This included some special, what could only be described as pork-barrel earmarks for tobacco companies, oil refineries, SUV buyers, Home Depot ceiling fans and the list goes one and on.
There are atleast 77 things here I would not do or as suggested do differently. The 78th thing rests with the American people and indeed the UN. Is Bush and many in his administration guilty of war crimes? On the surface they are because there is little difference in their actions and one of a ruthless invader. Whether they be enlisted soldiers or contracted, there is evidence crimes have been committed from rape, murder, pillage, torture and everything disgraceful in between including profiteering. There is enough evidence that the basis for these invasions were spurious and the administration and intelligence community knew the intelligence to be spurious. There is evidence Bush has lied to congress and senate, the UN and has continued these untruths. He has caused untold misery upon his own people as well as innocent people abroad. What is a war criminal? History is already shifting so quickly against this man and his actions that it becomes a matter of whether an incumbent president sanctions a genuine enquiry. They probably wouldn’t do it because of the enmity it would create in the Middle East. This administration will be looked upon as the turning point where the US lost who they are and no amount of diplomacy will ever get it back. Who the historians will really look at are those who voted for him in the second term. That is where the real tragedy lies. For those voters will believe to their grave that they have done no wrong and they are blameless for this horrible war. They will never ask how many people they are responible for killing, maiming and lives simply destroyed for they are blameless. They just voted for him. And I say history will stick a knife through your foolish, gullible hearts for what you unleashed upon this world. What would I have done differently? Had the election on Tuesday and told you republican noodles to show up on Wednesday, that would have saved the rest of us alot heartache and have family units all over the world still in one piece.
Bush has already stated that he has put his troops in harm’s way. What he forgot to mention was that not only are they in harm’s way, they are doomed to the same devil’s choice of policing as the British Soldiers were in Ulster. The primary reason Saddam Hussein was not ousted after the Gulf War was that his departure would have created a civil war as the majority Shiites, with Iran’s assistance, would have come sweeping up from the south over the minority Sunni; something like what happened in Rwanda with the majority Hutu and over the minority Tutsi. So to save the west from that unpalatable scenario Saddam stayed under heavy trade embargos getting even wealthier from companies trading under the table with him, such as the Australian Wheat Board who poured millions into his swelling coffers. With the US & UN pulling back to avoid totalling destabilising the region they effectively planted the seeds for an even greater jihad against the west. So with now Saddam removed you immediately have a civil war. Instead of American and the coalition of US trade agreements fighting one enemy, they are now effectively fighting everyone: Just as the British troops were in Ireland: For this reason this dog is a lost cause and a war without end.
The Iraqi government sounds like a puppet government, looks like a puppet government and behaves like a puppet government. It also looks as stable as a one legged man in an arse kicking competition. Iraqi police and soldiers are viewed like collaborators. US troops viewed like invaders. Sunni seek help from Syria. Shiites seek help from Iran. Kurds seek help from Allah as no other bastard is going to assist them when the shit really hits the fan. A civil war attracts martyrs flooding into Iraq from all sides and George Bush has not just simply put his troops in harms way. George Bush has made policing Iraq an absolute fucking nightmare because suddenly, like the British in Northern Ireland, they became loathed simply for being impartial. Literally everyone was your enemy. This included women and children, catholic or protestant. In Iraq, Sunni, Shiite, Kurd, male, female, children; ambush from suicide bomber, who has the bomb, anyone! Road side bombs, snipers, mortars, everything and anything behind a mandate to restore order. How?
I would do this very differently. Learn from Ireland, it is a good template. Israel could learn from it too. Like Ireland the issue of North and South, protestant and catholic was resolved by economics. Not only have the US brought civil war, carpet bombings, troop invasion to Iraq, they have brought no economic and social benefit. Life is harder not easier. It has been harder not for six years but since 1991 for the average Iraqi who of course blame the US for their woes. Then add to that the enormous toll in human life and injury that has touched nearly every friend and family in the country; good luck policing that swell of animosity. To learn from Ireland, people prospered. There daily lives economically improved. Just like after world war two with the Marshall Plan. It was very important to get people working and getting them wealthier. For all the trillions spent, that is how you do it. You keep your enemies not just closer but well fed, safe and happy: After the 9/11 attack the world poured out their hearts to the Americans but after invading Afghanistan and Iraq that love soon vanished under such a murderous and senseless response. A populace that loves you will not readily bomb you. Fanatics will always want to kill you but a populace who actually appreciates you is your best protection. Believe me, a populace that hates you means that you have fanatics who loathe you even more. The Bush administration is not liked by the world; he is loathed by the Arabic world for unspeakable crimes against them.
This is the most important thing that needs to be done now.
17. Give Palestine it's sovereignty it will atleast give the region one less thing to explode about.
One last thing- God is in charge of the prophesies. The Rapture, Armageddon if you truly believe in these, then you have to believe they are in God’s hands, not yours. There is no necessity to try and hurry these events along yet everything indicates that is exactly what this true agenda is all about. For those who quote Jesus so often and praise God loudly, perhaps you could read your own book and simply, “Love thy enemy.” That is what I would do, would have done and instead of spending trillions spreading misery and hate, I would have loved thy enemy until they knew it. I would have traded with them, help feed them and generally I would have kept them closer and learnt from them and only then, just maybe I too would feel safe.
He who wishes to fight must first count the cost. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be dampened. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor dampened, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue... In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns. - -Sun Tzu, the Art of War
There are three kinds of intelligence: one kind understands things for itself, the other appreciates what others can understand, the third understands neither for itself nor through others. This first kind is excellent, the second good, and the third kind useless. -
Niccolo Machiavelli
Jesus wept - The Bible
A contest entry
- Hate President Bush? What Would You Have Done Differently? by Mark Rickerby.
2250 points, ended June 22, 2008, 15 entries
Gold trophy winner
• next poem in this contest, remove from contest
Please tell me what you think
Comments
1 - 16 of 16
-
The bible has no footnotes about America. We are a nonentity. At least our government is. The people are a different matter. This is an excellent piece of writing. A gold is definitely deserved.
-
First let me say I really like this. You have way to many questions that there is no way to answer all of them at one time. On voting. First, the government does not want all the people to vote. It constantly creates obstacles to remove as many people as it can.
Research it. You will find that this is true. I am an Ex-Felon. Of course there is no such thing in the eyes of government. I live in West Virginia. Luckily my right to vote was restored after serving my time. There are ten states that do not do that. Mainly in the south. A way to deny blacks the right to vote.
You will never see a Saturday vote. It makes to much sense.
-
Lady,
if I had a hat on I'd take it off. I could never have sustain the thought or controlled the anger to write such a letter (too bad Cheney would have got it and just thrown it away) Great job
-
Congratulations but then I knew it would be here before I got here
, didn't let me down 
Love, Cheryl
-
The following is a reply to your essay which is all too true to be comfortable to any intelligent human with the ability to ensure these monsters pay for their crimes.
1. I could not agree with you more. This would eliminate the current monopoly of the Republican / Democratic bs election campaigns.
2. Then everyone could vote without having to worry about missed wages for taking the time to do so.
3. Clinton’s dick licking should never have entered into the equation.
4. Not only did the Supreme Court decide what was a legal representation of the voting populace, they did not order a recount of all the votes, only those loyal to the Bushes.
2nd part of #4: The defeat suffered by those supporting the increase in defense spending was the reason for 9/11. I believe it was an inside job to cause the current hysteria and shredding of our new found toilet paper, the US constitution and Bill of Rights. I do not believe in coincidence. Those accused of this act had nothing to do with Afghanistan or Iraq. War and prisons are a very profitable business in the US and all over the planet. Those responsible are those that profit, which makes 9/11 an act of HIGH TREASON.
5. You are absolutely correct. We do not have a clearly defined enemy because that enemy is the Executive Office. Once again we must look to motive. All evidence, circumstantial and solid with the Executive Office having their fingerprints all over it, the President not even being on the ground, but flying senselessly around the world with no destination in his private jet, and all involved caught with their hand in the cookie jar and crumbs on their lapel, all the questions queried but never answered by the Executive Office, says it profits those responsible to commit this act of treason. A terrorist act by our own leaders on its own people
6. It is a cover up. Who are the wealthiest Arab countries? Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
7. Bush will not incriminate himself, he may be an idiot, but he is an intelligent idiot. Oxymoron intended as well as pun.
8. GUILTY until proven INNOCENT. The act of a true terrorist and Judas of the American people.
9. He should also stop testing weapons under ground and biological weapons here in America like AIDES.
10. He is incapable of telling the truth. For if he did it would negate everything he has sold to the extreme Rapture of the Armageddon.
11. Once again, he would be telling a truth he is incapable of mouthing. He has not said a word of truth since before he took the Executive Office. His own history of never finishing anything speaks for itself.
12. He, like his predecessors, sales the technology and the hardware, software and provides the transport of these goods to further his own ‘peoples’ profits and those who suffer from this administration are not his concern. Sarcasm intended: He was born with the DIVINE right to rule the world.
13. This was a piece of information that was found early on before he was reelected.
14. The Patriot Act is the most un-patriotic piece of writing every committed to law in this country. Once again, it affords Bush and all his cronies absolute power to rule the world by divine right.
15. Being incarcerated by a hysterical, maniacal right wing law enforcement is the scariest and most inhumane act that can happen to any life form. Bush has found terror and fear to be a very effective tool.
16. The Geneva Convention has been ignored for years by the Executive Office and those who believe they have the divine right to rule the world. Local jails in prison states across the nation would be examples of these offenses.
17. Even if they were a combatant, do you hardly blame them? Do you know of ONE right wing militant ass that would not defend his right to religious freedom and to shove it down every ones throat at the same time in the same situation?
Social
1. Of course. Profit is his first priority. Health, safety and environmental regulations are an obstacle to profit.
2. Must keep control of the slaves to their tyrannical kingdom.
3. Must keep women under their thumb for they need their offspring to become the uneducated fodder of their armies.
4. Ditto to numbers 2 & 3.
5. The need to keep the fear between the ethnic races to keep control of their confines.
6. Once again it is about profit, not human life.
7. None of their business. But same sex marriage might mean that some of their slaves might actually be happy instead of miserable and in fear of the law.
8. Why then they could not sell their wares across the globe to every fascist leader that needs backing long enough for those who rule the world to profit from it.
9. Again, profit motivated. They cost money. They put his personal inheritance at risk of a decrease to his bottom line that is never reported to the IRS.
10. Good move to incorporate the portion of the American voting populace that is not extreme right, but hates all other religions because there after all is only ONE God, and the bible is proof of that.
11. Supports #10 above. Brain wash the human mind before it gets the radical idea that it really can think for itself and does not have to capitulate slavery of the spirit.
12. Why that is because it is immoral to have sex, but right and very moral to kill innocent civilians for living in the country they were born to. Our bombs only kill bad people now, don’t you know?
Freedoms
1. Can’t have his absolute power yanked out from under his feet, right when he is coming to the peak of his divine right to rule.
2. Why would they? It did not happen to them.
3. The witch hunt starts again. Before you know it, they’ll be burning them alive or tying them to a wheel and throwing them into the ocean and claim of course they were guilty or God would not have let them die. But then they would be killed for coupling with the devil if they lived. It’s called Sheeshee or Death by Sheeshee.
4. Ditto of #1.
5. A slight affliction of his consciousness to lie again.
6. Did it ever occur to American public that those holding these people hostage are the illegal immigrants of a nation taken by genocide?
7. No one has the rights of the Geneva Convention even in local jails and prisons. Until it happens to you, you will not believe it.
8. Gonzales, Chaney, Bush and all of these cronies of the darkness are above the law, did we not know that yet?
9. Probable cause has always been ambiguous, now they just openly say they don’t have to have a reason.
10. Though Bush has been very thorough in undermining our liberty and setting himself and his prodigy up for many generations to come, he has left many holes that will come to a very bad end for him and those associated with him.
11. Why? Because they undermine his authority by disagreeing with war on a terror that is only within himself.
12. What are the two most profitable and largest corporations that are thug scams currently in full scale marketing enigma? Insurance and pharmaceutical companies. It would be interesting to see who the actual private stock holders are for these companies, and who they are connected to.
13. In this country, and now across the planet, the King/Divine Ruler is above the law.
14. Don’t want any American rebels stirring the pot and learning ways to oppose the current regime.
15. If you can’t appeal due to the appellate being controlled by the power you are appealing, you cannot change the laws that enslave you.
16. Imagine that.
17. They have the divine right, don’t you know? Because God told them they should. And our Bill of Rights has been their toilet paper for a very long time.
18. PROFITS! PROFITS! PROFITS! Motive should be scanned very closely on this one.
19. That is because he’s a bully and a coward. Direct confrontation would melt him in a pool of black blood.
20. Marijuana users can think for themselves. That does not fit into their game plan and could cause extreme discomfort to the current administration.
21. Until it happens to you, you just won’t believe it.
22. And everyone knows George is a good Christian man, a good president and has the might of right on his side. As everyone also knows that Americans are the only people that would fire and kill their own countrymen due to religious or political disagreements and justify it to their last breath.
23. He will not surrender unless under false pretenses.
Environment
1. Gotta keep that good old Christian value of killing everything in your path alive and well to do.
2. Raping the earth is his favorite pass time. What better way to desecrate the ancient ones than to kill the greatest Mother of them all, the Earth.
3. Imagine that.
4. Why should he care about global warming, the Armageddon is here, Praise the Lord and pass the ammunitions.
5. Human life is not the only form he despises.
6. Not to mention mood controlling happy drugs to find their way into our drinking water. These psych drugs produced, sold and sanctioned by the Bush Administration make meth look like child’s play.
7. Padding his own pockets for future generations of absolute power.
8. Laughing all the way to the fucking bank.
9. While marching and singing in 4/4 time; “We are mean little fascists, we can kill the earth fastest.”
10. We must kill them before they hurt themselves.
11. Divine right has its privileges.
12. Must stabilize the economic environment first.
13. 40% of our rivers and lakes are already dead and polluted to the point that we cannot fish or swim in them. He seems to think we need to increase that to 75% before he leaves the earth to the meek to inherit.
Union & Business
1. We have no rights. Workers with rights do not increase his number one motivation; profit.
2. Eats up his profit margins.
3. I daresay Bush would have them executed before allowing them to strike.
4. Of course, they do all the work and where would Bush be if all the worker ants went on strike?
5. Again, regulations take away from their bottom line.
6. They replaced them with military personnel
7. What a scam, eh?
8. They might get too cocky if given the ability to buy the laws too.
9. Imagine that.
Finance
1. Where do you think he and his cronies place their many profits from ill gotten deeds?
2. This surprises you?
3. Absolute power must be corrupt to its fullest extent to be effective in bringing on the Armageddon.
4. Because he knew he would be placing more taxes on certain products.
All answers herein are given with the utmost respect to sarcasm and the reality of truth that you have revealed to an all too compliant and disbelieving populace. Until it happens to them personally, they will not find anything wrong with the crimes being committed by our government all over the planet. Bush and his administration will only abuse our Bill of Right, our Constitution and the rest of the world as long as we allow him to. If you do not know what your rights are, you have none.
And Jesus emancipated himself from the human race, as he wept tears of blood.—The Bible in the near future. -
David,
Thanks for writing this novel.
I picked a terrible time to have a contest because work and life have been very busy so please forgive me for not commenting on it earlier. Looks like Chuck had to step into the ring for me. haha I am now sporting the long, white beard of wisdom as a result, but I did read it all and was duly impressed, thus the gold trophy. You made your points well. There are some things I want to discuss with you but life continues to get in the way. Do me a favor and give me some time. I'll bounce in from time to time over the next week or two to ask you a few things. For now, congrats on the win. I particularly liked the artful way you interjected Sun-Tzu quotes to accentuate your argument.
Mark
P.S. I hope you actually wrote this for this contest and didn't just copy and paste it from all the other Bush-bashing contests you've entered. haha - just kidding. Gotcha!
-
-
Thank you Mark
As staggering as it may appear that I might find some extra things to write about Bush, this was written specifically for this question, which happens to be a very good one, and was written from scratch without a single cut and paste from previous discussions. Strangely enough although I too am flat out at work, I found my fingers bursting into flames writing this.
I want to thank Cheryl for alerting me to the comp.
I will be happy to answer any and all questions although I would read Chuck and my answers to his altnernate view.
Thanks again
David
-
-
(1.) Review and amend college voting system to preferential voting.
First, the college voting system works fine. Popular voting is by its very nature inaccurate at best and coveys fraud at worst. Winning a popularity contest is not a good means to elect a President. People who vote are predominately lazy and will NOT take the time to accurately judge who is the best candidate. Media is bias and will spout crap every day to get their candidate elected. Illegals vote due to our not requiring proof of adaquate identification at our ballot places. The Electorial system allows for all this by having those who have extensive experience (usually) as the deligates, this also helps those small states have a greater impact on the election.
(2.) Change voting from first Tuesday to first Saturday in November.
Could not agree with you more.
(3.) If Bubba had have kept his pecker in his pocket instead of banging Monica Lewinsky wouldn’t have done Gore’s campaign too much harm either.
Could not agree with you more.
(4.) The Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to be making legal decisions with regards the veracity of indentations on voting cards.
Casting blame on the Supreme Court for the decision or even the need to address the issue of hanging, indented, partly perforated chads fails to recognise that the issue was already through a court in South Dakota 1993 (State Supreme Court) and Massachusetts courts 1996, and "..the courts have not been unanimous; some decisions in the South during the 1970's and early 80's held that an incompletely punched card automatically disfranchised the voter."
"I've never heard anyone say a nondetached chad would ever count as a vote,'' said Doug Lewis, executive director of the Election Center, a Houston organization"
"Courts in Alaska have held that unpunched cards that are nonetheless marked in pen must be counted. The Illinois Supreme Court ruled in 1990 that requiring a chad to be either fully detached or hanging -- detached enough to swing out -- would ''set too rigid a standard'' for determining voter intent."
I would suggest you read this article and get informed of the history and why the item even came before the Supreme Court. Which BTW had the duty to hear the case after so many conflicting state judgements.
The original question here was not about the chads, it was about an improper election counting procedure which was allegded to have tampered with the electorial process - certainly a Legal decision was needed for that as the suit came from a individual who lost the election.
As I'm sure your aware, we all have the right to sue and you cannot by law give that right up. AS soon as the suit was brought to court, the court is bound by law to make a judgement. Thus the paper trail led over the decades to the Supreme Court of the USA and the fact that it was on the agenda of the court at that date and time was purely considence, as it was on the agenda for almost 6 months before the election.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9505E0D6143BF935A25752C1A9669C8B63
(4 continued) Before there was 9/11, within weeks of Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld taking office, there was a push to raise defence spending.
Naturally.
(Why the Bill of Rights and the US constitution were being massacred by the Patriot Act?Why the Bill of Rights and the US constitution were being massacred by the Patriot Act?)
Nice statement - back it up with facts.
(Why is Saddam Hussein being so closely associated with Osama Bin Laden when such a coupling is the western world was equivalent of the Pope and Hugh Hefner? )
Personally, I would have advised Bush to go into Iraq without any of your 20/20 hineysight. When Saddam ordered the assassignation of President Bush senior, and it failed but was traced back to him, that alone was enough justification to send in the Marines.
(US foreign policy which has a long history of spin)
That sure is true...in both ways. Spin is the order of the day for policy, so is favoritism, politics, religion, and basically anything the special interests are in favor of.
(But with a long standing policy of trampling their own values set out in the constitution and Bill of Rights abroad,)
Facts, facts, facts please
(The CIA’s assassination of the democratically elected Allende in Chile )
There is no proof of this assertion. "The United States has acknowledged having played a role in Chilean politics prior to the coup, but its degree of involvement in the coup itself is debated. The CIA was notified by its Chilean contacts of the impending coup two days in advance, but contends it "played no direct role in" the coup."
(The fact is that this path to war was very avoidable and republican unilateral actions towards the UN made it even more deplorable and more avoidable than most Americans realize or accept.)
Of course your totally ignoring the role of the Democratic party and the votes to GO TO WAR that your political leaders cast.
(I would not have gone to war without a clearly defined enemy.)
I wish war was always clearly defined. But, this has never and never will happen. There are always shadowy allies and hidden agendas.
(Terrorism is not a clearly defined enemy.)
Of course not. Nor was the Communist surge in Russia during WWI, or the French trators who joined the Germans, or Siam (now Thailand) that sided with the Japanese in WWII.
(...and let’s not forget how successive governments in Colombia are assisted by US military aid for supposedly fighting drugs and terrorism but really ensuring rebels in Colombia’s south don’t get the upper hand.)
Have you ever heard of ANY country that didn't take what it could get in aid and then use it any way they want, despite any protests?
(It was abundantly obvious after 9/11 the US were looking for something to pummel. It really didn’t matter who.)
Absolutely not true. We were looking for the culprits. They were scattered in many countries. Theirs is a new type of enemy. They don't own a 'state', nor occupy lands. They deal in death to all who do not believe in their way of life and have stated over and over they will control the world some day.
(Tell the average Fox listener there were terrorists in Mauritius they would have happily high fived a cluster bomb over Club Med so frenzied was the jingoistic righteous rage)
This fails to take into account that FOX news is Number 1 over all the other channels and includes more Democratic viewers then any other channel can claim.
(So when a group of zealots from Egypt and Saudi Arabia supposedly band together and fly planes into the twin towers, the pentagon and aiming to wipe out the White House, who the fuck does one retaliate to? )
Well, SUPPOSEDLY??????? Shit man where were you? It did happen you know.
(7) I almost agree with you on this one.
(8 8. Bush should not have attacked Afghanistan unilaterally much less attack them at all as there was no evidence that Afghanistan had attacked America. )
This entire paragraph is crap. Full of supposition and false opinions and no facts given. You've ignored the truth and made up some nice supportive propoganda.
(9 9. Bush should stop weapons testing in foreign lands and in this case, occupied countries....)
Another filled with opinion and no evidence of any of this.
(10)
So much here. Well, you've certainly a right to feel the way you do. I applaud your rights to do so, however, I'm glad your not in the State Department.
(11. I would acknowledge past US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. And what that really means in the context of this conflict.)
No one is trying to hide the fact that we screwed the pooch in these countries, but take a good look before you cast blame...their were DEMOCRATIC administrations that supported them too!!!!
(...if you think 5000 Kurds being gassed is a bit grim,..)
This really speaks volumns about you. Too bad I can't call this like it is in this contest. Would love to give you my opinion of someone who cites JUSTIFICATION for GASSING Civilians to death.
(Firstly there has never been a clear definition of a terrorist ...)
Wrong OH! there are many definations...here is one good one.
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0501-02.htm
(In fact it was established time and again from congressional committees that there were no WMD’s and certainly no link between Saddam and 9/11 or indeed Saddam and Osama Bin Laden. )
Please read my poem's Note section. Your absolutely WRONG in this statement and I can prove it. So can you...go to Google and GOOGLE IT!!!)
(In the process massive funding suddenly rubber stamped though congress along with the real threat to the average American’s freedom. )
Here you once again trip yourself up. "..rubber stamped through congress..." Yep! BOTH DEMOCRATES AND REPUBLICANS!
(After witnessing the shameful years of Guantanamo Bay )
You are entitled to your Opinion, but you know nothing about this facility. Try going there first and then talking about it.
(and Abu Ghraib..) Certainly stupid of those untrained guards.
(16 I would not have sanctioned torture and disregarded the Geneva Convention. )
The problem with this is I half agree.... you see the GC does not apply to un-uniformed criminals. I taught the GC to our troops for years before they were sent to SEA. I also had two tours there.
(If the Supreme Court declares the military court in Cuba illegal, and they probably will, those inmates at Camp X-Ray will be lining up to go home and start legal proceedings against their captors.)
Your only part right. The Supreme Court has allowed them access to our court systems, however it also held that the military courts were fine and they are still confined there and will be tried for some of their infractions there. Its standard legal policy to get them with as many crime convictions as possible. Never fear, they will never see the light of day outside of a prison somewhere.
(Without even citing the obvious that the US should not have invaded either Afghanistan or Iraq, you then have ask, if the US are supposedly bringing democracy to these countries they must ipso facto be bringing a judicial system ..)
I really had a good laugh when I read this one... you've destroyed your whole opinion on this page...
The US brought democracy but NOT OUR KIND OF democracy. We gave them a chance to create their own democratic government!!!!!!! Not impose ours!!
You want us to impose our form of goverment even when they may not want it. Wrongo!
~~~~~~~~~~~
Social
1. Glad he did that, too bad he could not stop the stupid pardons of that dimwit also.
2. Glad he did that too, but not because I support a different opinion, but because we should not be funding those places they should be public companies.
3. Killing a late term fetus is murder because we cannot determine at what point the baby develops to a human state.
4. "The idea of emergency contraception —-or a morning-after pill—- is based on a theory. Under this theory, if a woman has unprotected sexual intercourse (without use of contraception, contraception failure or cases of rape) and fears she may become pregnant, she can take large doses of birth control pills to prevent a pregnancy.
Emergency contraception, essentially, is a high dosage of the birth control pill. It is recommended for use after sexual intercourse, over a period of 72 hours, to achieve the goal of preventing pregnancy.
There are three different ways birth control pills are currently being promoted for this use: progesterone alone, estrogen alone, or both of these artificial steroids together. Again, these are the same steroids found in the typical birth control pill.
Two of the most commonly used emergency contraceptive pills are Preven and Plan B."
5. ..and your problem is?
6. lol... you didnt state how many were assault weapons!!!! Check it!
7. Got to love Bush for banning same sex marriages.
8. Yes, like Clinton, we didnt agree to limit our sale of light weapons.
9. Same answer.
10. Stem cell research is ongoing. I sell stem cell pills. There is a world leader company in stem cell research here in San Diego...should post their phone for you...want it?
11. I agree with you.
12. Not sure about this one.
Freedoms:
1. Patriot Act is needed in the time of war.
2. Yep! Privacy concerns.
3. Glad he did too...because its a common practice for a Prosecuitor to listen to all conversations you have with your lawyer...he just can't use the info in court.
4. This is just an assumption.
5. Not needed, nor required in this case. Are you really saying you dont want a missile shield?
6. Actually, "The Bush administration urged the court to resolve the dispute, which has ''great significance for the enforcement of the immigration laws, national security and public safety,'' Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson said in the government brief."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9807E6DF1639F934A25752C0A9629C8B63
7. This is just a rehash of your opinion above.
8. Same Same
9. Ashcroft didn't remove all the restrictions...google it will you.
10. This is so much crap. We are here in San Diego at Camp Pendelton having ongoing trials for War crimes. Man...get it right please.
11.
12. The laws on Doc/pat are still in effect... another unilateral statement of incorrect opinions.
Ok, I'm tired its late and this is just tedious unsupported opinionated nonsense. -
-
Dear Chuck,
Let me just say, before I obviously attempt to stab you to death with facts that I really do appreciate you taking the time to not just read this piece but be so thorough in your assessment. I was thinking that maybe Mark was still recovering from his birthday celebrations (or perhaps he’s working on War & Peace response as well) but in the back of my mind I was sort of hoping that the right winged torpedo full of baloney was being launched from you.
Two completely different strings of thought: Voltaire, I may not believe in what you say but I certainly believe in your right to say it. And secondly, just because you have been there, it doesn’t automatically follow that you completely understand something. At the end of the day, whatever either of us state is always going to be coloured or clouded by our opinions and political bent.
One point of real clarification before I start this response – I am not a democrat, I am an Australian who looks very closely at political systems all over the world. The democrats are in many respects holding very central political ground. In many ways, as far as I can judge, the more liberal side of the republicans and the right side of the democrats are almost indistinguishable from one another. To me, both sides hold some of the most untrustworthy, poll driven, self serving fuckers on the face of the earth who give the impression they would sell their own mother into slavery if there was one more vote on offer. So please don’t confuse me for a democrat rather than a realist who simply has more empathy with that beige side of the American political spectrum or more to the point no empathy at all for the policies and direction that Bush’s administration has taken since “dubiously” coming to office.
Now to your comments -
You say “First, the college voting system works fine. “
My reply is no it does not! You cannot have someone winning by a hand full of votes and picking up the entire state vote. That is absurd and more to the point it is highly undemocratic especially as the larger states swamp smaller states and negate democracy in other states.
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/
Florida 2000
George W. Bush 2,912,790 48.85% 25
Albert Gore Jr 2,912,253 48.84% 0
In other words, 537 votes gave George Bush 25 electoral votes thus negating the votes of seven other states and over 1.5 million other voters. So just to drive the point home and using this 2000 election as a perfect example of just how undemocratic it is – please explain to me why it is democratically fair that 537 voters in Florida should negate the votes of seven states and over one and a half million people (1,562,541 to be exact in Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine. Vermont, Hawaii, New Mexico and Rhode Island) who collectively voted for Gore and collectively raised 25 electoral votes in their combined states the same as Florida. Second main point is that preferential voting would have meant the other candidates votes would have been preferred to the main candidates. As most of those votes came from the Greens I doubt if the “I don’t give a flying fuck about the environment” Bush and the ex head of Halliburton would have got many of those preferences away from the future Nobel Prize winner for his work regarding green house gases. The other thing too is that in Florida under preferential voting Gore would have received 13 electoral votes and Bush 12, thus not destroying the votes of those seven other states. Or even more alarming the 51,003,926 voters to elected Gore and came up with 48% of the popular vote as opposed to Bush's 47%.
I really do defy you to explain how this college dog can look you in the eye to claim it is fair.
Put simply - it is not!
You say “Popular voting is by its very nature inaccurate at best and coveys fraud at worst.”
My reply - It is not “popular voting” it is “preferential voting” and unless you understand the distinction you would fail to understand the argument.
You say “Winning a popularity contest is not a good means to elect a President.”
I agree with this statement but I don’t agree with the inference that a US president, just because it is a college voting system is not elected as a result of a popularity contest because if that is the inference for stating it, then it is utter bullshit! It is a democracy and in democracies around the globe billions are spent on what are essentially popularity contests. College, preference, proportional representation, first past the post are simply the mechanisms of that vote. This coming election will cost by its conclusion in excess of a billion dollars taking into account all concerned, including the primaries on both sides to elect what is essentially the result of one huge popularity contest.
You say -“People who vote are predominately lazy and will NOT take the time to accurately judge who is the best candidate.”
My reply - True and false but this sweeping statement it is not the issue – creating the most democratic environment is the real issue. True most will not take the time but many do and many want to.
You say - “Media is bias and will spout crap every day to get their candidate elected.”
My reply - Media is mutually exclusive to voting systems and media bias is seen in direct juxtaposition to one’s own views and bias. Also political funding on both sides attempt to sway and influence media, again, not matter what voting system that particular democracies adopts.
You say - “Illegals vote due to our not requiring proof of adaquate identification at our ballot places.”
My reply - That’s irrelevant. Again this is mutually exclusive to any democratic voting system that is being used.
The Electorial system allows for all this by having those who have extensive experience (usually) as the deligates, this also helps those small states have a greater impact on the election.
Apart from it being Electoral rather than Electorial, proportional representation actually gives smaller states as well as smaller parties the greatest voting clout. Certainly not college voting.
Point four – Supreme Court & voting cards
This is a really good response although not one I would entirely agree with. The real issue here is the use of these cards in the first place. Quite frankly it is obviously unreliable, comes across as incredibly archaic and in this case combined with the college voting system, very unfair. As for the Supreme Court and that entire fiasco – my point is that this issue of punch cards is innately unfair, it does and has cause differing opinion through state courts and of course it ultimately has to reach the Supreme Court. What the decision should have been was to outlaw these fucking useless contraptions all together and get people to put pen to paper and mark a ballot sheet.
My statement - Before there was 9/11, within weeks of Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld taking office, there was a push to raise defence spending.
Your statement - Naturally.
My thoughts – Why is that natural as there was no justification for it?
My statement - Why the Bill of Rights and the US constitution were being massacred by the Patriot Act?
Your reply – “Nice statement - back it up with facts.”
My thought to that – Is he delusional? Has he actually read this Act?
Just a few contradictory statutes to pass the time and have one’s sphincter shrink to the size of a decimal point at the thought of such fundamental civil rights being utterly slaughtered.
Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Under the Patriot Act there is none of that - The government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial. And what is more they can do it under mere suspicion.
You have to feel that Benjamin Franklin was on the right track when he stated, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” If you think America would run better under a totalitarian rule good luck to you but when it turns and bites, I believe “fair” laws are the only protection you have. The Patriot Act protects nobody except those who seek power over democracy and justice. The really scary aspect of this legislation is that it makes nobody safe. Not even you. But seriously you need to read the Patriot Act and take to it with a highlighter – it is littered with laws contrary to the constitution.
(Why is Saddam Hussein being so closely associated with Osama Bin Laden when such a coupling is the western world was equivalent of the Pope and Hugh Hefner? )
Your Rambo reply "Personally, I would have advised Bush to go into Iraq without any of your 20/20 hineysight. When Saddam ordered the assassignation of President Bush senior, and it failed but was traced back to him, that alone was enough justification to send in the Marines."
My reply - Therefore one must assume Castro had every right to invade the US and take out Kennedy and Johnson. The fact remains is that like it or not, Iraq was a sovereign country. One of the most outrageous acts of kidnapping is Noriega, (thank you for reminding me Leo) who currently rots in a US prison. Unfortunately the mere act of sending assassins to kill your president does not warrant sending in marines unless you wish to be in a constant state of war and conflict.
I say - But with a long standing policy of trampling their own values set out in the constitution and Bill of Rights abroad,
You say - Facts, facts, facts please
My reply to that - What is being stated here is that the US appears to have a long standing foreign policy of elevating some of the most aggressive right winged fascists that modern history has on offer. There is proof that at some time or another American administrations (in fairness – both democrat & republican), or CIA under direction of the US administration or US businesses under the auspices of the US government have financially assisted, militarily backed and actively promoted among others, the Shah, Saddam Hussein, Marcos, Pinochet, Suharto, the House of Saud, Mubarak and the Kuwaiti Royal family. Also, it should be aided successive Israeli governments who since 1948 have carried on one of the most aggressive of all apartheid policies against the Arabs who were originally located there when the place was still Palestine and before Lord Balfour drew some lines across a map and effectively obliterated their rights and the rights their children and of successive generations. And of course successive Columbian governments are also recipients of some very generous US largesse.
This is from a recent Amnesty report –
“Colombia has been one of the largest recipients of US military aid for well over a decade and the largest in the western hemisphere. Since 1994, AIUSA has called for a complete cut off of all US military aid until human rights conditions improve and impunity is tackled. Yet torture, massacres, "disappearances" and killings of non-combatants are widespread and collusion between the armed forces and paramilitary groups continues to this day. In 2006, US assistance to Colombia amounted to an estimated $728 million, approximately 80% of which was military and police assistance.”
The fact is that this is a continuing practice, no matter if republican or democrat sits in the oval office. There is historic evidence that all the above regimes had and have committed severe human rights violations. There is historic evidence that the US has aided militarily and sold arms openly to these regimes and that the justice department, CIA and the White House have all been aware of these gross violations that are in direct contradiction to both the US constitution and Bill of Rights.
So let me clarify this. I believe that if the US actively supports brutal dictatorships that openly commit human rights violations, so the US can benefit from those dictatorships, they are by definition trampling their own values when they know that any hope of democracy, fairness and rights set out in the US constitution and Bill of Rights are being destroyed in part by US involvement and support of those pricks.
Now without trawling through every military and trade transaction, administration’s every decision relating to these countries since the Paris Peace Conference and aid they have bestowed upon these dictators and others, there is ready evidence to display US influence and US involvement and the US administration, Justice Department and of course CIA and military would have to be ignoring the abuses or just fucking incompetent not to be aware of them.
All I am stating is that instead of the White House trumpeting how wonderful some of these leaders are, how they are friends of the US and how the US aids them, be honest. They are in the most part a scab on the face of humanity who reward the US enormously and the US turns a blind eye to their excesses and their anti Bill of Rights approach to dealing with some of their tortured citizens.
I say -The CIA’s assassination of the democratically elected Allende in Chile.
You say – staggeringly, There is no proof of this assertion. "The United States has acknowledged having played a role in Chilean politics prior to the coup, but its degree of involvement in the coup itself is debated. The CIA was notified by its Chilean contacts of the impending coup two days in advance, but contends it "played no direct role in" the coup."
This is really called splitting hairs. And in many respects it falls into the same argument as the previous topic of the US backing murderous dictators and not in any way believing themselves to be responsible for the murderous actions of those dictators.
So let us bring this down to a real human level. Am I guilty if I fund a psychopath, arm that psychopath and instruct that psychopath to then kill and knowing that person is going to kill, then stand back at let it happen? I would believe this is called inciting a crime, knowledge before the fact, knowledge after the fact and I would be in deep do in most courts despite not having committed the crime personally. Was the Godfather guilty of committing murder? In much the same way, was the CIA guilty in killing Allende?
Several Latin American countries, including of course Chile, elected socialist leaders. These leaders were seen as communist. This communism was simply too close to the U.S. mainland for the government’s liking. Especially after Bay of Pigs and ensuing missile crisis and embargo in the early 60’s. So in a subversive attempt to keep Communism out of South America, the U.S. funded and encouraged coups in several of these countries to get the socialists out of power. If they could do this through the ballot box they would. But in Allende’s case, despite assistance from the US coming in the form of political support, money and direct CIA intervention, he was still popularly elected. So, not to be put off, the U.S. supplied and funded anti-Allende advertisements in the early 1970s, and while is it debatable that the United States played a direct role in the successful 1973 coup, a declassified CIA documents from 1970’s state catorgorically, "It is a firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup." It should also be noted that when Pinochet was in power, the U.S. provided monetary and military support to his government. They also provided military and financial assistance long after it became obvious this arsehole had no respect for human rights at all.
http://www.amazon.com/Pinochet-File-Declassified-Atrocity-Accountability/dp/1565845862
This is an interesting book, you should read it.
I say -The fact is that this path to war was very avoidable and republican unilateral actions towards the UN made it even more deplorable and more avoidable than most Americans realize or accept.
You say - Of course your totally ignoring the role of the Democratic party and the votes to GO TO WAR that your political leaders cast.
My reply to that is – I am not democrat and I am certainly not ignoring that salient fact.
I say - I would not have gone to war without a clearly defined enemy.
You say - I wish war was always clearly defined. But, this has never and never will happen. There are always shadowy allies and hidden agendas.
My reply to that – That statement is just plain bollocks! When the US was bombed at Pearl Harbour I really don’t know how much more fucking defined that enemy can be. When the Brits were getting the bejesus bombed out of them during the blitz, I say that enemy was clearly defined. But in this particular case, as you agree later on, terrorism is not a defined enemy. Therefore to go chasing these ghosts all over the globe by wrecking havoc upon civilian populations only strengthens a terrorist’s cause. Because at the end of the day, the US still hasn’t got a clearly defined enemy, yet the terrorised population that has been invaded by the US, bombed by the US and generally had their lives turned upside down by the US, lost friends and family to the US, they indeed do have a very clearly defined enemy and unfortunately so do their children.
I say -Terrorism is not a clearly defined enemy.
You reply by pulling this furphy from you rear end and state - Of course not. Nor was the Communist surge in Russia during WWI, or the French trators who joined the Germans, or Siam (now Thailand) that sided with the Japanese in WWII.
I say – what the? Firstly, the communist surge in Russia was as result of the Mensheviks not being released from WW1 by Britain and France, after the first or white revolution removed the royal family from power. It was only after the continuing slaughter of Russians in that senseless conflict, the starvation experienced by the majority of Russians in a very bleak 1917 did the Bolsheviks force their way to power in the October or Red Revolution. To even mention the 1917 “communist surge” in the same breath as “Terrorism is not a clearly defined enemy” is just distracting bullshit as it has absolutely no relevance to this discussion at all.
I say -...and let’s not forget how successive governments in Colombia are assisted by US military aid for supposedly fighting drugs and terrorism but really ensuring rebels in Colombia’s south don’t get the upper hand.
You say, and quite rightly - Have you ever heard of ANY country that didn't take what it could get in aid and then use it any way they want, despite any protests?
My reply to that is, you have missed the point. The US with all their supposed principles give this aid to countries they know for a fact is repressive and commits human rights abuses. In other words they trade off their own Bill of Rights principles to support ruthless juntas, dictators and governments who can best achieve US foreign policy aims and business interests regardless of the tortures, false imprisonments and murders. That is why at a grass roots democratic level, the US is loathed in some of these countries where the direct result of their aid to these suppressive governments and regimes, their actions, impact upon the freedoms of some very down trodden individuals.
I say - It was abundantly obvious after 9/11 the US were looking for something to pummel. It really didn’t matter who.
You say - Absolutely not true. We were looking for the culprits. They were scattered in many countries. Theirs is a new type of enemy. They don't own a 'state', nor occupy lands. They deal in death to all who do not believe in their way of life and have stated over and over they will control the world some day.
My reply to that is – let me quote "We will kill one way or another, fairly or unfairly, right or wrong ANYONE who attempts to rob us of our religion." It can be argued the US were going after the culprits but it was a very vengeful, very indiscriminate, very crude approach to seeking out those culprits that killed way too many innocent people, destroyed to many lives, homes and sowed the seeds of so much hate as to make the US liable to be attacked for many, many years to come. The simple fact is for all the justification the US thought it may have had to launch attacks on two sovereign nations and terrorise the populace of those nations, the enmity that it has caused would tell you the response far exceeded the words “justified.” And what is more I still haven’t seen any “justified” response against either Saudi Arabia or Egypt. I for one have grave doubts that those terrorists who were killed in those attacks were the only terrorists from those countries
I say - Tell the average Fox listener there were terrorists in Mauritius they would have happily high fived a cluster bomb over Club Med so frenzied was the jingoistic righteous rage
You reply - This fails to take into account that FOX news is Number 1 over all the other channels and includes more Democratic viewers then any other channel can claim.
My reply is that I don’t give a fuck! FOX news has been a right wing disgrace that is a blight on journalism. It is an extension of how Murdoch dispenses news – and I have seen him do this pretty much all my life with the papers he has taken over all over in Australia and the world. It is a recipe of sensationalism, heavily editorial tub thumping, biased shit. That it be number one does not give the sub standard of journalism any credence at all. That it includes Democrat viewers in its demographics – your point is what?
Here is a tip about Murdoch. He is a politically expedient animal and he is a business man first and foremost – and a very ruthless one at that. He likes to back winners. He backed Thatcher and the Tories right up to the point where he crucified Major and backed Blair & Labour into power. He will no doubt move his bias away from the Republicans if he truly believes Obama will win. You will notice the shift – subtle at first but if he is really backing Obama he will be so blatant come November if his track record is anything to go by. Murdoch loves elections. It one makes him a fortune. Murdoch pumped FOX news during the majority of Bush’s two terms, the Republican Party and this ludicrous war against terrorism to the point of propaganda. FOX news! What an absolute insult to one’s intelligence.
And what is more in the recent Australian election that saw the Liberals being defeated after 10 years but saw Howard, not just thrown from office but one of the very few serving Prime Ministers ever to be thrown out of his very once safe electorate. This was due to many factors, one of which was Howard’s very unpopular alliance with Bush and having Australia involved in this war and the other was the editorial barrage he received from Murdoch Press, papers and television that had shifted it alliance to Rudd, who happened to run an effective campaign. But the point is that Murdoch changes quickly but in the last 1o years he has been a great friend of the republicans and made a great deal of money from supporting this war.
I say - So when a group of zealots from Egypt and Saudi Arabia supposedly band together and fly planes into the twin towers, the pentagon and aiming to wipe out the White House, who the fuck does one retaliate to?
You say - Well, SUPPOSEDLY??????? Shit man where were you? It did happen you know.
I say – that the nation that brought you the magic bullet theory and the hokum of the Warren Commission needs to be questioned. Because although it is easy to blame Al-Qaeda – and they probably need to be blamed – I am cynical enough ask why? Why would they do that and what could they possibly gain? Where as the much greater gain are the trillions of dollars in war contracts. The huge amount of extra aid that has poured into Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, Emirates, Qatar and Israel. These are genuine gains. The amount of money poured into just Halliburton and its many subsidiaries like Brown & Root is just beyond imagining. And behind it all is the thought that it is such a horrendous crime that no American department, American operative, American business or an American ally could possibly have been responsible. And I really hope that to be the case. I am just not 100% convinced that is the case. The only thing that Al-Qaeda has gained from this would be from the over the top reaction from America where by invading Iraq and Afghanistan has helped recruit thousands of would be terrorists from all over the Islamic world.
(7) I almost agree with you on this one.
My reply – let me just bottle this moment for prosperity!
I say - 8. Bush should not have attacked Afghanistan unilaterally much less attack them at all as there was no evidence that Afghanistan had attacked America.
You say - This entire paragraph is crap. Full of supposition and false opinions and no facts given. You've ignored the truth and made up some nice supportive propoganda.
My reply to that is you are wrong. What I am saying is that there was never any hard evidence linking Iraq and certainly not Afghanistan with these attacks. This was later stated at every inquiry assessment of these attacks. What is more these attacks were on sovereign nations – albeit pretty fucking ordinary ones but nonetheless sovereign nations recognised to be sovereign nations by both the US and more importantly the wider international community of the UN. In short, in both cases, the US launched unilateral unprovoked attacks on these countries whether you accept this as fact or not. The onus is on the US to prove they were anyway involved and in the six and seven years since launching attacks and invading these countries, the evidence is mounting they were not involved at all. Never were involved and it is also pointing towards the Bush administration possibly knowing neither country was involved. I would suggest it is you who has ignored the truth in this matter. Also the other part of this was simply reversing the roles and wondering how the average American would feel being invaded being blamed for something they felt they were not involved in. At the time the wider UN community recognised the US to be wrong in this matter particularly the French and German governments. Especially the UN was sitting on a mountain of contrary evidence it had collected stating categorically that the chances of Iraq and Afghanistan being involved was indeed remote at best. They certainly had no weapons of mass destruction.
Really, it should be you who need to show me the “Facts” that were present to make it overwhelmingly obvious that these two countries should have been carpet bombed and invaded.
So you tell me the facts as to why Iraq and Afghanistan needed to be invaded.
I say - 9. Bush should stop weapons testing in foreign lands and in this case, occupied countries....
You say - Another filled with opinion and no evidence of any of this.
I say – you come from a military background, are you telling me that the US army does not weapons test in Afghanistan?
You say - (10) So much here. Well, you've certainly a right to feel the way you do. I applaud your rights to do so, however, I'm glad your not in the State Department.
I say – I am glad I am not either.
I say - 11. I would acknowledge past US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. And what that really means in the context of this conflict.)
You say - No one is trying to hide the fact that we screwed the pooch in these countries, but take a good look before you cast blame...their were DEMOCRATIC administrations that supported them too!!!!
I say, being pedantic – think you mean “Democrat” and I say I agree with you as American foreign policy favours Americans self interest more than it does a particular administration.
I say - ...if you think 5000 Kurds being gassed is a bit grim,..
You say – having missed the fucking point completely - This really speaks volumns about you. Too bad I can't call this like it is in this contest. Would love to give you my opinion of someone who cites JUSTIFICATION for GASSING Civilians to death.
I reply - Who the fuck is citing JUSTIFICATION for GASSING Civilians to death – I really hope you don’t mean me. What is stated was that he was using US chemicals, the same chemicals he used to gas tens of thousands Iranians during that useless conflict where Rumsfeld was one of the liaisons between the US and Iraq and assisting in the build up of arms to Saddam. What was being stated here were two major points. Saddam’s own people are certainly not Kurdish so when Saddam brutally gassed them, in his own mind he would certainly not be thinking he was “gassing his own people.”
Secondly and more importantly is just how expendable the Kurds are in this issue. The Kurds, since the invasion have helped the US to secure the North of Iraq. They have effectively been given an autonomous free hand to look after their own affairs thus freeing up valuable troops and manpower so the US and those nations of the willing can attempt to bring democracy and some semblance of stability to the rest of the country. Without the Kurds looking after their own affairs this would have been made all the more difficult. However, when it comes to granting the Kurds nationhood, the US will not support them. The US know they want it, know they deserve it and know they will never get it because of Turkey’s opposition to it. Should the US leave, never mind every other bloodbath, the Kurds will be slaughtered by the Sunni Iraqi, Turks and Shiite Iranians. Then of course the Russians hate them and because of their alliance with Iran, they will do nothing but watch. So I say again ‘If you think 5000 Kurds being gassed is a bit grim...” they will be annihilated and the US will effectively leave these people high and dry. The US have done before and they will do it again. But in the meantime the Kurds play a very important role for the US by simply looking after their own affairs in the northern region of Iraq.
I say - Firstly there has never been a clear definition of a terrorist ...
You say - Wrong OH! there are many definations...here is one good one.
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0501-02.htm
Which reads –
ter•ror•ist (ter'er-ist) n. 1. One who engages in acts or an act of terrorism.
2. One who leads an armed group that kills civilians as a means of political intimidation -- unless he terrorizes Haitians while on the CIA-payroll, as did 1990s death squad leader Emmanuel Constant, in which case the U.S. refuses to extradite him to Haiti, even after Sept. 11, 2001.
3. One who targets civilian airliners and ships -- unless he blows up a Cuban civilian airliner, killing 73 people, and fires at a Polish freighter, like Orlando Bosch, in which case he is coddled and paroled by the Bush Justice Department in 1990, and his extradition is blocked.
4. One who leads a group that engages in kidnapping and murder -- unless the victims are Hondurans attacked by CIA-backed death squad Battalion 316, in which case Battalion architect Gustavo Alvarez becomes a Pentagon consultant, while the then-ambassador to Honduras who downplayed the terror, John Negroponte, is appointed U.S. ambassador to the United Nations days after Sept. 11.
5. One who uses rape and murder for political purposes -- unless the victims are four U.S. church women sexually assaulted and killed in 1980 by members of El Salvador’s U.S.-backed military, in which case excuses and distortions pour forth from then-U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick (“these nuns were not just nuns; they were also political activists”) and Secretary of State Al Haig (the nuns “may have tried to run a roadblock”).
6. One who designates civilians as “soft targets” to be attacked in the cause of political transformation -- unless the targets are Nicaraguans killed by Contra guerrillas armed and directed by the U.S who, according to Human Rights Watch, “systematically engage in violent abuses…so prevalent that these may be said to be their principal means of waging war.”
7. One who facilitates a massacre of civilians -- unless the victims are 900 Palestinians shot and hacked to death in the Sabra and Shatila camps by Lebanese Christian militia as Israeli soldiers stood guard, in which case Israel’s then-Defense Minster (now Prime Minister) Ariel Sharon remains a U.S. “War on Terrorism” ally after being censured as indirectly responsible for the massacre by an Israeli commission of inquiry.
My reply is – have you really read this? As I believe it further strengthens my argument about America being involved in other country’s politics and affecting the democratic way in which those places are to be governed. This is directly relevant what I was saying about Allende.
It also strengthens my argument that there is no clearly defined terrorist. Why? Because these people who instigate this terrorism are only seen as terrorist depending on your political view point.
But let us just look at what he is saying – exactly the same as me. He gives you the definition and then he is explaining why the definition is indeed ambiguous. He is also saying why the US can be viewed as a terrorist because they in turn are funding such dubious characters who suppress popular political movement by any and all means to subvert the direction of that country to their own benefit.
Let me just say this – having been to England – do you know how many statues of George Washington (One who engages in acts or an act of terrorism) I saw there feting him as a great “Freedom Fighter.” Let me give you a hint – somewhere between naught and zero would put you somewhere in the ball park. To the English he was a terrorist. Every native culture on the face of this earth that has had white invaders would believe those people to be terrorists (One who facilitates a massacre of civilians). George Custer was a terrorist – (One who leads a group that engages in kidnapping and murder). And am very glad there are no stories of US troops doing this in Vietnam to any of the villagers (One who designates civilians as “soft targets” to be attacked in the cause of political transformation). Who is a terrorist and who is not is dependent greatly upon your objective, your politics and who you wish to ultimately see victory.
Mr Cohen’s notes on his terrorist definition certain says as much – along with the inference that the US are not exactly as pure as driven snow and can certainly be cited in the same terrorism breath as what we would traditionally describe as terrorists.
I think you shot yourself in the foot with that one!
I say - In fact it was established time and again from congressional committees that there were no WMD’s and certainly no link between Saddam and 9/11 or indeed Saddam and Osama Bin Laden.
Your reply - Please read my poem's Note section. Your absolutely WRONG in this statement and I can prove it. So can you...go to Google and GOOGLE IT!!!
My reply is I am not wrong. I have read what you said in your poem’s note. There were no WMD’s – Hans Blix proved that. There was no link between Iraq and 9/11 – no one ever stated that except the Bush administration and FOX news. And there was no link ever established between Saddam and Osama Bin Laden and would have been insulting to both men to think there was. Again, one cannot use FOX news as a reliable source nor can one use the Bush administration. In the hysteria of the day propaganda was being sprouted that Saddam was saying this and saying that- the fact is he never said he had links with OBL. He supposedly told an FBI agent he has weapons of mass destruction which came out years later, after SH had been hanged. And the source was an FBI agent which sounds like he was verballing a dead man. The fact is that poor Colin Powell was forced to state his case at the UN and basically sprout bullshit to justify this invasion. Small wonder he resigned not being able to see eye to eye with Rumsfeld. What sane person would? I also don’t let MI5 & MI6 off the hook for there disgraceful intelligence efforts or how the British Government tampered with those reports either independently or in collusion with the US departments and administration. The whole thing was incredibly suspect aimed towards nothing but war with absolutely no other course considered.
I say - In the process massive funding suddenly rubber stamped though congress along with the real threat to the average American’s freedom.
Your reply - Here you once again trip yourself up. "..rubber stamped through congress..." Yep! BOTH DEMOCRATES AND REPUBLICANS!
My reply – Don’t be daft, I certainly am not letting the democrats off the hook. I don’t let them off the hook for the invasion, for the Patriot Act, giving up unreasonable power to the executive and I certainly don’t let them off the hook for nominating that fucking idiot Kerry as a candidate against that greater fucking idiot Bush. It was rubber stamped and it was rubber stamped with the democrat member of congress needing to get their arse kicked for behaving democratically and asking a few questions.
I say - After witnessing the shameful years of Guantanamo Bay
You say - You are entitled to your Opinion, but you know nothing about this facility. Try going there first and then talking about it.
My reply to that is - Try getting out of there Chuck and fucking talking about it! So what would I see that would change my opinion and magically validate this human rights disgrace. These people have been captured some seven years ago, taken from one country, plonked in Cuba without trial, without charge, and kept without any rights at all. Most of the lawyers, when they finally did get some legal representation have stated the Geneva convention has been ignored, Rumsfeld and a clutch of other have stated the same thing stating torture, having read UN reports, amnesty, red cross reports… seriously, tell me something that justifies one human being from a supposedly Christian, constitutional based democracy kidnapping another and without trial or charge just keeping them locked up. So I know nothing about this place – enlighten me please because it looks like a human rights disgrace. I would be very interested as to why you don’t think it is and the American government is doing the right thing here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detainees
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/guantanamo_names.html
I say -and Abu Ghraib..
You say - Certainly stupid of those untrained guards.
My reply - You may withdraw but you should realise that more people than simply you and I read these opinions as it is a public forum. America is not simply fighting a war against terrorism; it is fighting a war against itself and its national beliefs. Your government once elected represents all Americans. Its army defends all Americans. Its justice system provides justice for all Americans. Public opinion changes because at its core for a nation to extol morality it has to at some point defend its morality. If it can’t look at itself and say they were just and fair when they trumpet those virtues then the nation begins to question who exactly they are. America is doing this now. They did this in the late 60’s and early 70’s when many began to believe that their military was campaigning an unjust war. This national loss of faith in the righteousness of the US government not only effectively lost that war it brought into question the behaviour of the US military in other wars. Suddenly John Wayne fighting the native Indians didn’t look so heroic as films like “Soldier Blue” and “Little Big Man” and books like, “I Buried my heart at Wounded Knee” limned the US soldiers as murderers in the vein of Mi Lai. Every soldier past and present suddenly became tainted with Lt Calley and Medina’s actions. Like wise Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo depict the US military as torturers. Suddenly they no longer look like the righteous but no better than the Argentinean or Guatemalan juntas who disappeared and tortured thousands of its citizens.
To simply brand those guards as stupid and untrained for someone who is supposedly knowledgeable in this area I would say is deliberately sweeping the severity of this under the carpet or an out and out lie. Those pictures all depict deliberate torture methods. The one of the prisoner standing hooded on a small box, arms outstretched like Christ with his fingers attached to electrodes is a well known torture method. If you know everything else that has been spoken about you would certainly know this as it bears such a striking resemblance to a particular Brazilian torture. It is effectively four tortures in one and is incredibly painful. To stand on a box, to have hands outstretched, to be hooded and to be electrocuted: Untrained guards Chuck you would know, do not do this torture. Those pictures show if nothing else, those guards had in fact been trained in these methods of torture. Along with other pictures from Abu Ghraib shows that those guards were more likely under direct instructions and the only way to stop such a PR disaster snaking up the military command right to Bush’s and Rumsfeld’s desk was to state it was “stupid and untrained” That it was government policy against Muslims caught would have lost the immediate support from Arabia.
The simple fact is that this administration has rejected the Geneva Convention and it uses a variety of torture techniques on human being who have disappeared. They have been taken, sometimes from one country to another, tortured, often for years, no charge, no trial and in some cases have never been seen again. If you wish to support that behaviour and a government that advocates such despicable policy of human treatment, that is your choice. But it is also the choice of every other American come November and if I was a campaign manager for Obama, I would have huge pictures outside every polling both of tortured Iraqis from Abu Ghraib and say, “if you voted republican, you voted for this!” That should test the moral compass of your nation.
Untrained…you have to be fucking kidding me!
Police and military torture because they feel they can so with impunity. That can only come in this case from senior command. Do you really believe these guards would have faced prosecution had those photos not been leaked?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25461172
Doesn't sound like someone is too untrained when they are actually contracted to do it
I say - 16 I would not have sanctioned torture and disregarded the Geneva Convention.
You say - The problem with this is I half agree.... you see the GC does not apply to un-uniformed criminals. I taught the GC to our troops for years before they were sent to SEA. I also had two tours there.
My reply - So therefore you would also know that a person is either tried as a civilian and afforded civilian justice or they are a “combatant” and tried by the military. Firstly I think it remarkable that the US strike rate for picking up “combatants” in a guerrilla war is batting at .999 and therefore can be tried as combatants. Also because the US military have rejected the Geneva Convention it makes the treatment at Abu Ghraib appear like policy rather than isolated stupidity. Also, all those tried said as much
So it is not the American government who have tough choices but the American people. Do they alter the direction of their country by choosing Obama or do they effectively stay with a course of action that in effect condones the actions of Bush? I personally think that voting republican risks America ever morally recovering from this moment. I think voting democrat risks splitting a nation who wants to finish the job and those who want to get the hell out of there. Personally I would risk the latter.
I say -If the Supreme Court declares the military court in Cuba illegal, and they probably will, those inmates at Camp X-Ray will be lining up to go home and start legal proceedings against their captors.
You say - Your only part right. The Supreme Court has allowed them access to our court systems, however it also held that the military courts were fine and they are still confined there and will be tried for some of their infractions there. Its standard legal policy to get them with as many crime convictions as possible. Never fear, they will never see the light of day outside of a prison somewhere.
My reply to that – I realise they will not let them go. What really chills me is this presumption of guilt.
I say - Without even citing the obvious that the US should not have invaded either Afghanistan or Iraq, you then have ask, if the US are supposedly bringing democracy to these countries they must ipso facto be bringing a judicial system ..
You say - I really had a good laugh when I read this one... you've destroyed your whole opinion on this page... The US brought democracy but NOT OUR KIND OF democracy. We gave them a chance to create their own democratic government!!!!!!! Not impose ours!! You want us to impose our form of goverment even when they may not want it. Wrongo!
My reply – No I haven’t. I am not talking about local courts I am talking about how the Americans run their justice in these countries they are supposedly liberating. As I can see it, their military courts are bringing a tyranny that bears no resemblance to constitutional justice. As for democracy, I really don’t know what that is in Iraq but I certainly agree with you- its not US democracy, nor Australian…its looks more like a puppet regime where the Americans pull not just the purse strings but the political decisions as well.
Social
I say - 1. On the day of his inauguration back in January 2001 he immediately halted through his Chief of Staff Andrew Card a sixty-day moratorium on all new health, safety, and environmental regulations issued in the final days of the Clinton administration. So he was off to a cracking start.
You say - 1. Glad he did that, too bad he could not stop the stupid pardons of that dimwit also.
My reply – An administration that willingly pisses trillions of dollars up against the wall for a spurious military attack on an intangible foreign enemy is somehow wise with their fiscal policy over slaughtering better health, safety and environmental regulations for the benefit of the majority of Americans; you are glad they weren’t implemented? Why on earth would you say that? As for pardons, let’s see how many pardons are splashed out come January 2009.
I say - 2. He of course took no time at all to attack Roe v Wade and in the process of stopping funding to abortions and abortion counselling boards he attacked a fundamental woman’s right.
You say - 2. Glad he did that too, but not because I support a different opinion, but because we should not be funding those places they should be public companies.
My reply – Abortion clinics and counselling should be public companies? You would invest in that? Firstly I really don’t think that gets to the heart of the Roe v Wade issue and secondly it is a matter of choice not a matter of profit. Also as most women or girls affected by this issue, I would be very interested to know what percentage were wealthy enough to have health insurance. I have a vision of teen aged girls needing assistance.
I say - 3. In 2003 Congress banned late-term abortions.
You say - 3. Killing a late term fetus is murder because we cannot determine at what point the baby develops to a human state.
My reply is that this is a tricky moral dilemma and nearly always relates to ill or deformed babies whose quality of life is ruined before they even start. I, as a legislator would be very reluctant to get in between a mother, a doctor and this horrible, heart wrenching decision.
I say - 4. In 2004 the FDA blocked RU-486, the “morning after pill,” from being sold over the counter.
You say – 4. "The idea of emergency contraception —-or a morning-after pill—- is based on a theory. Under this theory, if a woman has unprotected sexual intercourse (without use of contraception, contraception failure or cases of rape) and fears she may become pregnant, she can take large doses of birth control pills to prevent a pregnancy.
Emergency contraception, essentially, is a high dosage of the birth control pill. It is recommended for use after sexual intercourse, over a period of 72 hours, to achieve the goal of preventing pregnancy.
There are three different ways birth control pills are currently being promoted for this use: progesterone alone, estrogen alone, or both of these artificial steroids together. Again, these are the same steroids found in the typical birth control pill.
Two of the most commonly used emergency contraceptive pills are Preven and Plan B."
My reply is this is another matter of choice and another avenue to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Taking that choice away discriminates against females. Again, males shouldn’t be anywhere near this choice and be putting their name to this type of legislation. As for banging together a concoction of birth pills, one suspects RU-486 may be a little easier for someone scared shitless they may be in the pudding club.
I say - 5. Ashcroft orders background checks to gun licenses to be destroyed one day after being granted instead of 90 days…oh shit! Bang!
You say - 5. ..and your problem is?
My reply is that in a gun nut nation where the second amendment effectively assists in the killing and maiming of over 100,000 Americans every year, who actually has these guns and the level of checking I would believe to be very important. Such background checks should never be destroyed, much less after one day of the licence being granted. Shit, I couldn’t imagine the Bush administration checking out a terrorist then scrapping the information one day later. And it is my belief that the external threat of terrorism to the USA pales in comparison to the internal terrorism of a rampant second amendment killing and maiming that many people year after year after year. In the same period of time since 9/11 killed 3000 people, over 4000 soldiers have died and over 40000 injured. In the meantime well over 200,000 US citizens have been killed in that time as a result of guns and over half a million more have been injured. Maybe its just me but hey, mathematically how does that make it okay. From the outside looking in, that situation looks utterly fucked! Also I should add the combined deaths and injuries directly attributable to US bombings and shootings in Iraq and Afghanistan is even higher than the US gun figures.
I say - 6. In 2004 Bush and the House Republicans allowed the federal ban on assault weapons to expire. Bang! Bang! In that year over 30000 Americans died from gun related incidents and over 100000 were injured. That second amendment, it’s a beauty isn’t?
You say - 6. lol... you didnt state how many were assault weapons!!!! Check it!
My reply – lol? I wouldn’t be laughing at this! The thought of the average citizen owning assault weapons is staggering in Canada, England, Australia, etc. In the same monotony of history repeating, we constantly have some lunatic wanting to kill as many people as possible in the shortest space of time. A legally acquired assault weapon is a chilling thought at the best of times much less in the hands of some gut nut that goes mad. Weapons are bad enough but assault weapons. How the fuck can any body present a case for assault weapons being in the hands of a civilian population?
I say - 7. Banning of same sex marriages.
You say – 7. Got to love Bush for banning same sex marriages.
My reply is the thought of two guys poking each other up the Jackson is not a savoury thought to this heterosexual. Although I admit I seem to like many of the same things as lesbians. This is not a matter of sex, it is a matter of freedoms. The fact is that some people are not simply attracted to the same sex but genuinely fall in love with a soul mate from the same sex. As such, what ever they do in their own time is not the issue. That they have legal rights afforded to them in their unity as the same rights heterosexual married couples take for granted is the issue. No government should be able to legislate on love. Just as with the Jim Crow laws forbidding mixed marriages between black and white were wrong; just as the Nuremberg laws in Germany forbidding marriages between Jew and non Jewish people were wrong, so this legislation is wrong. We are all human beings, we are fundamentally the same. And we all wish to love and be loved with that one true love. To deny that is to deny a fundamental human right.
I say - 8. Bush refuses to join international treaty to limited sales of small arms and light weapons
You say - 8. Yes, like Clinton, we didnt agree to limit our sale of light weapons.
My reply is that America should regardless of who is in office.
I say - 9. Bush refuses to sign a treaty to limited chemical and biological warfare much to the disgust of the international community especially UN & EU
You say – of course - 9. Same answer.
My reply, not surprisingly - America should regardless of who is in office.
I say - 10. Bans stem cell research
You say - 10. Stem cell research is ongoing. I sell stem cell pills. There is a world leader company in stem cell research here in San Diego...should post their phone for you...want it?
My reply is please post that number and what exactly do stem cell pills do and how does this company comply with the current legislation? I would be genuinely interested.
I say - 11. Bush’s Education Secretary Rod Paige states US schools should have “strong Christian values”
You say – 11. I agree with you.
My reply – CHARGE…CLEAR!!!! Doctor, I think he is beginning to revive.
Freedoms
I say - 1. Signs Patriot Act in late October 2001
You say - 1. Patriot Act is needed in the time of war.
My reply is that the Patriot Act is a gross over reaction to the situation and stripping civil liberties from the American people is wrong. A state of war is not when you are bombing the shit out of foreign countries. World War Two lasted less than this time, there has not been another attack on American soil for nearly seven years and still the Patriot Act is in action with no clear threat that requires such across the board, Draconian legislation.
I say - 2. Justice department refuses to identify over 1000 detained after 9/11
You say – 2. Yep! Privacy concerns.
My reply is grave privacy concerns and grave concerns about the trampling of legal rights.
I say - 3. Ashcroft sanctions recorded conversation between attorney/client in possible terrorist matters thus removing attorney/client privilege by mere suspicion.
You say – 3. Glad he did too...because its a common practice for a Prosecuitor to listen to all conversations you have with your lawyer...he just can't use the info in court.
My reply – and now he can use the information in court and thus destroying a very hard fought legal right.
I say - 4. Blocks the release of Presidential records thus protecting his father’s presidency to closer scrutiny.
You say - 4. This is just an assumption.
My reply – read the Presidential Records Act. It is not an assumption. You are obviously not aware of it or if you are you have either not read it or fully understood it. Otherwise you would not be shooting from the hip saying this is an assumption. The executive should be historically accountable and this is one of those ways in which a presidency can be analysed. This is not an assumption it is law and what is more, it is a bad, restrictive law that needlessly prevents close scrutiny of not just Bush senior’s presidency but this presidency. I should point out it also prevents close scrutiny of Clinton’s presidency.
I say - 5. Bush pulls out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty unilaterally without congressional debate, permission or request.
You say - 5. Not needed, nor required in this case. Are you really saying you dont want a missile shield?
My reply is that this treaty is specifically designed to control the mad man theory and restrict proliferation and a return to a spiralling nuclear arms race. I am probably saying I don’t want that. On the other hand if there is a practical reason as to why the US should begin unilaterally building up its nuclear armoury and not expect other nations to do the same. So be it. It may be a chicken and the egg argument or it could be that other nations are building their arms and the US believes the conditions of the treaty too restrictive to keep pace. Either way it can’t be good news because it takes us back to the bad old days of Cold War paranoia where we have a real likelihood of reducing the earth to a nuclear wasteland. And the only people likely to survive are the people who perpetrated the stupidity in the first place.
I say - 6. From late 2001, Justice Department is allowed to hold illegal immigrants indefinitely.
You say – 6. Actually, "The Bush administration urged the court to resolve the dispute, which has ''great significance for the enforcement of the immigration laws, national security and public safety,'' Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson said in the government brief."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9807E6DF1639F934A25752C0A9629C8B63
Justices to Rule on Holding Illegal Immigrants Indefinitely
The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide whether foreigners who never had a legal right to enter the United States may be held indefinitely while immigration officials try to arrange their deportations.
The case presents a question raised but not directly answered by a decision by the court three years ago in a case concerning a German-born Lithuanian who entered the country legally as a child and who then compiled a long criminal record that made him deportable.
Neither Germany, Lithuania nor any other country would take the man, Kestutis Zadvydas, who remained in custody for three years before a federal judge ordered him released. The Supreme Court ruled in Mr. Zadvydas's favor, interpreting the statute governing detention before deportation to contain an implicit limitation of a ''reasonable time,'' normally six months.
But the court observed that unlike Mr. Zadvydas, ''aliens who have not yet gained initial admission to this country would present a very different question.'' Since then, the lower federal courts have divided over whether that different question should have a different answer.
The Bush administration urged the court to resolve the dispute, which has ''great significance for the enforcement of the immigration laws, national security and public safety,'' Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson said in the government brief.
Mr. Olson told the court that there were more than 1,000 people in this category, immigrants who were never lawfully admitted, had been found deportable and have been in detention for more than six months. Most are Cubans who arrived in the 1980 Mariel boatlift and whose return Cuba has refused to accept.
The case that the justices accepted is an appeal filed on behalf of one of the Mariel Cubans, Daniel Benítez. Like some 125,000 other Cubans who were formally denied entry at that time, Mr. Benítez was admitted a temporary parole that did not convey the status of legal residency. While in the United States, he compiled several criminal convictions that the old Immigration and Naturalization Service determined made him ineligible for lawful permanent residency. He was placed in immigration custody in October 2001.
As his detention approached six months, he filed a habeas corpus petition, arguing that he was entitled to release under the reasoning of the Zadvydas decision. Both the Federal District Court in Panama City, Fla., and the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, held that the Zadvydas ruling applied just to ''resident aliens.''
His appeal, Benítez v. Mata, No. 03-7434, argues that the statute that the court interpreted in the Zadvydas case makes no distinction between resident aliens and ''excludable'' ones like Mr. Benítez. Two other federal appeals courts, his lawyers pointed out, have held that the statute ''cannot be interpreted one way for admitted aliens and another way for nonadmitted aliens.''
In any event, the appeal maintains that ''it is at least a serious question whether the Constitution permits the government to lock a nonadmitted alien in prison for the rest of his life because his home country will not take him back.'' For that reason, it says, the court should interpret the statute as it did in the Zadvydas case, to avoid what would otherwise be a substantial issue of due process.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer's majority opinion in that case said open-ended detention would pose a ''serious constitutional threat'' that the court should avoid by interpreting the statute to have a reasonable time limit.
While agreeing in the new case that the question needed resolution, the administration told the justices that the 11th Circuit limitation on the Zadvydas decision was correct.
My reply – these are two distinct issues where a criminal cannot be deported because the original country of his birth will not accept him after such a long time and illegal immigrants caught at the Mexican border or coming in through Florida Keys is another matter entirely and one that has not been resolved. Certainly not by the Zadvydas decision even though the right to habeas corpus and limitation should be applied, in most cases it is not. Thus many thousands of illegal immigrants are in effect held in a state of legal limbo.
I say - 7. In January 2002, first Afghan inmates arrive at Guantanamo Bay where Rumsfeld declares they have “no rights under the Geneva Convention” In other words; they can be tortured, held indefinitely without trial or representation. And they were. And they still are.
You say - 7. This is just a rehash of your opinion above.
I say - 8. Alberto Gonzales states there is new paradigm with regards the war on terror making the Geneva Convention antiquated and irrelevant. In plain speak, FUCK OFF WORLD, America will torture people if we like.
You say - 8. Same Same
My reply is that there are four thoughts on torture. Torture is –
Moral & legal - Immoral & legal - Moral & illegal or Immoral & illegal
I happen to believe it is immoral & illegal.
Those who believe it to be moral and legal live in a world that I personally don’t want to inhabit. This is the world of medieval cruelty, military juntas and -
-
continued
8. Same Same
My reply is that there are four thoughts on torture. Torture is –
Moral & legal - Immoral & legal - Moral & illegal or Immoral & illegal
I happen to believe it is immoral & illegal.
Those who believe it to be moral and legal live in a world that I personally don’t want to inhabit. This is the world of medieval cruelty, military juntas and ruthless dictators. A world that uses this on another human being, thinking it both legal and moral is not seeking truth but control; it has no other purpose but to terrorise and crush resistance. Those who use this implement of suppression are those regimes we currently see in Zimbabwe, Burma & China to name but a few, have seen in the past with Guatemala, Chile, Uganda, Iran and of course Iraq etc and usually associate with the very worst of dictators such as Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler etc.
When one believes torture to be immoral but legal is treading a very fine line that borders upon delusional as history will tell you that any truth gained from this method is swamped by panic stricken, self saving mendacity sprouted in the heat of pain. Israel passed laws in the eighties that allowed torture under extreme circumstances that effectively acknowledge the practice to be immoral but nonetheless legalising it. It was to be applied to those Palestinians suspected of possibly creating a nuclear holocaust in the Holy Land. Under those circumstances one would assume that in the most cases torture would not be applied to the average protestor, dissident or wrong doer. By the time this law was revoked in the late 1990’s, it was because nearly 90% of those Palestinians arrested were in fact being subjected to torture under this law. The Israeli Supreme Court found that to be a ridiculous abuse of this legislation and also found that no benefit to the State was being gained through torture. Israel still tortures Palestinians; they just do it both immorally and illegally now.
Those countries who torture morally but illegally would believe themselves to be truly just and almost have God on their side to participate in this practice under these circumstances; the United States among others count themselves as morally justified to torure. The US military do this in Guantanamo and was found doing it so graphically at Abu Ghraib. Why the military claim the moral high ground is because they see this as evoking what I would describe as the Jack Bauer clause. It is that moment when the bomb is ticking, the murderous paedophile has a child in a secret dungeon, the vile full of Ebola is about to be released, etc. and there is simply no time to fuck about. It is the torture that many people in a heightened moment of crisis, in their nervous heart of hearts, condone. “Tell me you prick or you can say good bye to your knee cap!” We see it in movies and books when our hero is racing around with his arse on fire trying desperately to save the world. And when that knee cap hits the wall from that despicable bit of human filth, we cheer. The problem is that in stark juxtaposition to the reality of this lies the sobering fact that those captured and suspected in Iraq and Afghanistan aren’t all what they are suspected of. Many genuinely don’t know about the ticking bomb, the Ebola virus, the secret lab or more to the point, what the fuck Osama Bin Laden is up to- they have simply been kidnapped and tortured by a very aggressive US military because one Arab looks as untrustworthy as another and believe with out some brutally, will never be able to tell an innocent Arab from one that has designs to go ka-boom in a market place. Therefore the majority are tortured as enemy combatants with the Geneva Convention completely disregarded just as Rumsfeld & Gonzalez said it would be trashed; Arabs have and are being kidnapped, held without charge and trial, and many are still therefore being “morally” tortured by a supposedly righteous military.
It is unusual to win a foreign conflict if you systematically go about destroying the faith of the local inhabitants and trample their values. Torturing them is a very good way of going about that destruction of their belief in you “righteousness”. In Vietnam, by the end of that debacle, to a battered and abused local populace, one American looked the same as the other and more importantly to the Americans, one Asian looked the same as the other- in both cases one could save you or kill you in the same moment. History has a way of repeating and this must be happening to the US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan until it is safer to treat them all as an enemy until they know for sure.
Immoral and illegal- maybe I am idealistic in a brutal world but these conventions were drafted in 1925 as a result of the historical brutality dealt out to POW’s in the past. One of the most hideous examples of treating prisoners badly actually occurred during the American Civil War where fellow Americans killed, starved, beat, tortured each other, north and south, with alarming ferocity. The Geneva Convention also outlawed among a host of other dreadful practices of war, the use of biological and chemical warfare were up the top of the list as a result of what happened in World War One.
To demonstrate just how effective these conventions have been, 20 years later the camps run by the Germans and Japanese were opened by liberating Allied and Russian forces. They were certainly a good example of why there was atleast a Geneva Convention although proved as binding as blowing smoke rings in a hurricane. In these camps suffered not just soldiers but a vast host of unfortunate civilians caught up in German and Japanese policy. So grim were these conditions and so violated were these conventions by the Gestapo and Japanese guards and the out and out sadism of Japan’s Unit 721 and with the likes of Dr Mengele’s crew, the breaking of the Geneva Convention was constantly sited in the Nuremberg and Japanese War crime trials in the same breath as man’s inhumanity to man and that these atrocities can never be allowed to be repeated.
The problem is that the Geneva Convention is inherently good whist war is inherently evil. So whilst one can be idealistically wanting some semblance of the better nature of man, what we invariable find is that evil generates more evil and soon in the heat of battle, there is nothing but death, destruction and the very worst man has to offer of itself and the world in which it inhabits. It is a world where the Geneva Convention, legal, civil and human rights are not worth the paper they are printed on. It is a world where everything dies including unfortunately morality especially towards one’s enemy. And knowing exactly who that may be is a trick in itself. But then these camps were not strictly war or in the theatre of war. They were the deliberate incarceration and enslavement of people and the incarnation of evil. They were a means to mass murder and torture countless men, women and children and the government policies to do this used war as the excuse rather than being what it really was - the modus operandi- ethnic cleansing. No Geneva Convention or Bill of Rights or UN sanctions can possibly combat that type of evil. As Ghandi stated, his tactics wouldn’t have had a hope against Hitler.
The heart of this matter is really the problem here. Not for an instance would we automatically lump the worst practices of Hitler, Hirohito, Stalin, Pol Pot etc in the same breath as Bush. Yet here we are discussing morality and how it is applied to war and those captured in the theatre of war. In other words if it is looking like a duck, quacking like a duck and being dragged into a cell without any rights at all, tortured, humiliated and kept incarcerated indefinitely, killed indiscriminately, then you have to ask, what is the Bush military really doing and trying to ultimately achieve with this practice. Because when it is all said and done, it is certainly a long way from justice and an even longer way from being righteous.
I say - 9. Ashcroft removes restrictions on domestic spying by the FBI. New guidelines permit monitoring of political and religious groups (or more accurately – Islamic groups) without probable cause.
You say - 9. Ashcroft didn't remove all the restrictions...google it will you.
My reply – You have to be loathing true democracy to say that. The Bush administration has prosecuted people from domestic spying. The new legislation gave almost unlimited power to the government to domestically spy on the American people. In other words, under the ruse that America is in a state of war there has been a widespread policy implemented to spy and gather information that under constitutional law would be a violation. Under the new Bush driven laws, it is effectively a surveillance free for all. What is more they have very few checks and balances which gives the FBI, police and Homeland Security, Justice department etc unbelievable powers and more importantly, unbelievable protection against being prosecuted for such prickly problems as unlawful detention, brutality and harassment.
I say - 10. Bush voids the U.S. signature on the treaty to establish an International Criminal Court. What this means is no American can be tried in this international court. From a legal point of view, it is a disgrace. It also relates to no American can be tried for war crimes. This may be filed under “planning ahead”
You say - 10. This is so much crap. We are here in San Diego at Camp Pendelton having ongoing trials for War crimes. Man...get it right please.
My reply – Camp Pendelton trials have nothing to do with the issue of opting out of the international court and effective having Americans exempt from being prosecuted. Being tried for war crimes at Camp Pendelton under US military tribunals is not the same thing as being tried at the Hague under international laws set out along the lines of international jurisprudence. So I would suggest you get it right. These courts could not be more dissimilar in their scope, in their method and unfortunately in their justice: Just because they both try war crimes that is where the similarity unfortunately ends. Also it should be noted that America acknowledges, like My Lai that American soldiers have done the wrong thing and despite being under extreme stress or more pertinently under orders, someone has to appease the international community and be fed to the wolves. Trying “war crimes” at Camp Pendelton enables the US military and administration to control the situation, the flow of information, the sanctions and of course the paroles. And international court would turn these cases into a PR nightmare for the Bush government and the situation would certainly not be looking to righteous by the time international lawyers seasoned at prosecuting war crimes started chasing the culprits all the way up the military chain of command right into the West Wing and the Chief of Staffs. Camp Pendelton! You have to be kidding me as opposed to the International court.
I say - 11. Bush in 2003, withheld $34 million in UN funding
You say – nothing
I say - 12. Bush gives consent to both insurance and pharmaceutical companies to view confidential medical records without patient permission thus removing doctor/patient confidentiality.
You say - 12. The laws on Doc/pat are still in effect... another unilateral statement of incorrect opinions.
My reply – Bullshit! If that were so pharmaceutical companies would not have access to this information. It is purely about business and nothing to do with health. By removing that barrier this free access becomes an economic treasure trove for both drug and insurance companies. Also there are things discussed with a doctor that if there is no doctor patient confidentiality is another avenue by which this administration can monitor its populace under the ruse of “anti terrorism.” In a democracy, it is a disgrace.
-
-
-
interesting i'll be back to finish
Florida would have been of little or no importance had Al Gore won his own state of Tennessee in 2000.
I'll be back to finish reading and perhahps add more words of wisdom.
Desiree
-
I was going to enter this contest, but after spending the last 60 mins reading and digesting your arguements I think any effort I could produce would pale into nothing.
This is such a well thought out, well presented, well researched piece of writing that it not winning gold would be as great a tragedy as the current position the US find itself in.
My only critique (if you can call it that) is that I feel the piece would have come over better without the swear words, they only serve to devalue its meaning.
I may still enter, but I know I am only running for second place.
-
1. On elections.... I didn't vote for Bush or his daddy.
2. On history..... You forgot about Manuel Noriega. He hasn't seen the light of day since his abduction much less a court of law.
3. On geography 1...... What is the zipcode of Guantanamo? I need to know where to send your mail.
4. On geography 2..... What is the capital of Australia and where the hell is it?
5. On politics... I laughed loudly and unashamedly at your assessment of the Bush adminstration then cried silently at the truth of your message.
6. On tyranny... If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and lays an IED don't under any circumstances take it home for dinner. I don't care what kind of glazing you put on it you won't be able to eat it.
7. On citizenship..... As an American I should be outraged but I'm not allowed that luxury under the Patriot Act. See the Bill of Rights. Oh, silly me, I forgot they aren't worth the parchment they were written on.
8. On religion..... In God We Trust....all others pay cash.
In closing, I applaud you.
Sincerely,
Leo Long
-
really intelligent writing! bravo! totally unique on this site.....you have raised the bar of discussion considerably.....thank you...
-
Intelligent, Informative,Factual,Outstanding.
This is an extremely well written, well presented, factual and informative post. Far beyond ranting, this unearths, references, shows and tells the truth of the lies and the lie of the lands as combatted by these truths. It is singularly the most accurate assessment of events that I have read in over two years on allpoetry. So many Americans feel that being patriotic means advocating any and all actions by those elected without their being fully cognissant of either the past or how the past is interwoven with the present, without being fully informed the blind patriot is in effect part and parcel of a pat-riot. I echo my own concerns over each point made herein. You are one of the few that actually understood the mandate of the contest which was to voice in essay form one's own concerns as to the Bush administration, to reference them and to offer alternatives. Whilst I am no longer co-judge within this contest and have no effect on the trophy placements ( I withdrew for personal reasons and time constraints) I believe you have entered a singularly outstanding piece of political note. I cannot applaud loudly enough and have bookmarked this to refer others to in the future. I , for one, personaly thankyou for posting this and whilst that may mean nothing as we do not know each other, it means a great deal to me. I have found very few voices able to express such pertinent points as eloquently as yourself since joining allpoetry, I hope that many others read this thoroughly and question what they never questioned before.
-
Machiavelli would have been proud to achieve what you just did, expose the flaws and the festering laws administered to and upheld by cronyism of a definite US flavor, the only difference is that he would have used them to his own ends and not made them public for debate. And no doubt you are going to get one with this Love, C
Adding your comment:
1 - 16 of 16
