BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 12 Mar 07 - 11:26 PM

PS:

I don't see this thread as a discussion of anything. Just a gathering of anything negative that Amos can find.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 08:16 AM

Well, feel free to add popular views in support of the "doing well" part, if you can find some. Our surplus went from billions at the end of the Clinton era to negative trillions under Bush. I am not sure why that constitutes doing a good job on the economy.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 10:17 AM

"What you are doing is tantamount to fear-mongering, in an effort to scrabble for some kind of cheap factional angle with no concern for the public weal yourself.

By all means, expose graft and shine the light on evil. But don't go doing it on a partisan ballyhoo basis. It is tedious and counterproductive. I predict you will find some more, and it will not stop, because power corrupts human beings in general, with delightful rare exceptions. Blow all the whistles you like, but do it from a sense of decency, not a lust for slander."


I wonder who said this?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 11:03 AM

"Our surplus went from billions at the end of the Clinton era to negative trillions under Bush."

Will Mr. fixated narrow focus please see this chart and notice the the Clinton "surplus" started a precipitous down hill decline in 2000, before Bush took office because there was a recession underway.

Also notice that the deficit was decreasing before Clinton took office.

Right now it is decreasing and will likely be decreasing when the next president takes office.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 11:52 AM

The chart you refer to says that Clinton's talley was a net gain of 526 billion. George Bush's first term was a net deficit of -648 billion. This loss has been reduced to -496 billion to date. These numbers do not reflect the national indebtedness, merely the budget deficit. Bush effectively wiped out all Clinton's gains, according to this chart, and is barely back to square zero or one in recovering them as far as the budget deficit is concerned. Also note the chart ends on 1-29, before present surge outlays have been fully assessed.

BB: I did.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 12:09 PM

"Spend our grandchildren's legacy & dowery"

FDR, one of Amos's good guys, spent ours. See Chart

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 01:06 PM

Dickey, you blithering dog's breath, that was the middle of WW II!! Jaysus!! You would turn Christ's own crutch into a political football if someone dropped it on your head!! LOL!





A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 02:10 PM

Amos: Please be advised that Ad Hominem attacks are a logical fallacy that indicate you have nothing to offer but personal attacks and rhetoric.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.

Ad hominem is one of the best known of the logical fallacies usually enumerated in introductory logic and critical thinking textbooks.

As a technique of rhetoric, it is powerful and used often, despite its inherent incorrectness, because of the natural inclination of the human brain to recognize patterns.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 03:26 PM

I notice you have cleverly avoided addressing the actual logical fallacy of comparing WW II fiscal management with the fiscal management in later years.

My argument with you was couched in ad hominem terms, but it is quite clear there is a substantive distinction in the center of it which you have twisted to your own purposes.

I have frankly had enough of this ducking, twisting. squirming and viperous inanity. The thinking is too corkscrewed around and bass-ackwards for me to even begin to understand it. Sorry.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Barry Finn
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 03:36 PM

And the FDR rabbit appears AGAIN! Please kill the rabbit!

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 04:07 PM

my cartoon of Bush with Harriet Myers and Gonzales on his arm:

SURGE THE TROOPS AND PURGE THE JUDGES !!!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 08:04 AM

From "Political COrtex", a blog with left-leaning tendencies:

"To Impeach George Bush or Not to Impeach George Bush! That is the Question!
By Bob Kendall
03/13/2007 04:17:18 PM EST

Does the current Congress consider the Constitution a dead document? Ronald Roberts of Redmond, Washington, in a compelling letter to the Seattle Times editors on March 12, posed this impeachment necessity bluntly:
"Our legislators at both the federal and state level are equally bound by Article 6 of the United States Constitution to support it. To ignore the assault that has occurred is dereliction."

As for Democrats who have failed their constitution-bound duty to begin impeachment proceedings, we must censure Nancy Pelosi emphatically. How dare Nancy decide, "Impeachment is off the table."

Apparently instead of demanding that impeachment investigations begin immediately, Nancy has demanded a larger airplane to supply for herself and those she deems worthy to be taken along for the ride, at taxpayer expense, of course.


Elizabeth Walter of Seattle told the editors of the Seattle Times her views on March 12:
"I believe Congress must impeach Bush and Cheney in order to honor the wisdom of our forefathers and to defend the American experiment.

"Our forefathers knew that there would be corrupt people in the executive office who would abuse the people and abuse the power bestowed by the people. Those corrupt people are in the executive office today, and we need to hold them to account.

"Bush and Cheney have repeatedly violated the Constitution, our laws, and lied to Congress and the public over and over."

After launching the Iraq War with a well orchestrated media blitz of lies and fear tactics which did dispose of a former ally, Saddam Hussein, we have demolished the Iraq infrastructure, sent everyday Iraq citizens fleeing by the millions to Jordan, Syria, anywhere on earth just to survive.

The unforgivable deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, 3,500 U.S. service personnel, and over 50,000 combatants and non-combatants are a tragic stain on U.S. history.

What does Bush fantasize chasing around South America now in Air Force One can achieve with his terrifying track record? CNN Worldwide TV has repeatedly shown all the hellish death, destruction, and debt this Administration must be held accountable for right now!

What does Bush fantasize chasing around South America now in Air Force One can achieve with his terrifying track record? CNN Worldwide TV has repeatedly shown all the hellish death, destruction, and debt this Administration must be held accountable for right now!

If they lose their role of allegedly representing the people they can become lobbyists themselves. Before they were accepting cash lobbyist contributions. Now they can hand out cash contributions. It has been called the slippery hand syndrome.

But not to worry; we are blessed with moral guardians like that Republican icon Newt Gingrich.

Gary Clark of Marysville, Washington told it like it is in a letter to the Seattle Times, which was published on March 12:

"It was stunning to read that Newt Gingrich crawled out of his septic tank to admit or confess that he had an extramarital affair during his pursuit of charges against President Clinton.

"Imagine that! Somehow Newt suckered all the conservative Republicans into believing he was indeed the compass for moral values and family values."

And this is one from Ripley's "Believe It or Not". Apparently born again Newt calculates that after this "public confession" he should consider running for president."


The groundswell continues.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 08:12 AM

The New York Times offers a steaming condemnation of Bush's involvement with the firing of US Attorneys on improper grounds:

"Politics, Pure and Cynical


Published: March 14, 2007
We wish we'd been surprised to learn that the White House was deeply involved in the politically motivated firing of eight United States attorneys, but the news had the unmistakable whiff of inevitability. This disaster is just part of the Bush administration's sordid history of waving the bloody bullhorn of 9/11 for the basest of motives: the perpetuation of power for power's sake.


Documents Regarding the Department of Justice Firings From the House Judiciary Committee Web SiteTime and again, President Bush and his team have assured Americans that they needed new powers to prevent another attack by an implacable enemy. Time and again, Americans have discovered that these powers were not being used to make them safer, but in the service of Vice President Dick Cheney's vision of a presidency so powerful that Congress and the courts are irrelevant, or Karl Rove's fantasy of a permanent Republican majority.

In firing the prosecutors and replacing them without Senate approval, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales took advantage of a little-noticed provision that the administration and its Republican enablers in Congress had slipped into the 2006 expansion of the Patriot Act. The ostensible purpose was to allow the swift interim replacement of a United States attorney who was, for instance, killed by terrorism.

But these firings had nothing to do with national security — or officials' claims that the attorneys were fired for poor performance. This looks like a political purge, pure and simple, and President Bush and his White House are in the thick of it.

..." Full article , worth reading.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 09:03 AM

"According to Vice President Dick Cheney, supporters of a plan to reduce our military presence in Iraq are "undermining" our troops.

No, what undermines our troops, and the security of our nation, is the politicized gobbledygook being spouted by Mr. Cheney and his allies.

Born of hubris, betrayed by incompetence, the administration's war strategy has been a disaster — for Iraq, for America and especially for our troops.

Congress must exercise its constitutional responsibilities and decelerate American involvement in Iraq. Anything less undermines the safety, security and effectiveness of our brave men and women in uniform.

David Alexander
Powell, Ohio, March 13, 2007"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 09:39 AM

I notice you have avoided addressing the fact that the money was spent by noting it was spent during a war, Do you deny it was spent?

Do you deny it was a much greater overspending than Bush is credited with now?

If it was indeed spent and if it is a greater portion of the GDP than is being spent now, how can it be any more ruinous now than it was then?.

Thus the charge of spending our grandchildren's legacy & dowery was done 60+ years ago and we are probably better off because of it.

Do you deny that Clinton inherited a declining deficit and left an decreasing surplus?

The downhill trend began during Clinton's tenure, continued until mid-2004 and is now in an upward, declining deficit trend. To say that GWB has not turned a negative trend into a positive trend is to put a narrow focus on the current state of affairs.

Notice how I have avoided calling you clever and avoided a display of hostility. Just a contribution to this discussion like you requested.

You continued display of animosity toward anyone that dares to oppose your assertions indicates you are only interested in views that comply with yours. That is why I say this is not discussion, as you have mischaractarized it, but a collection of negative views or "dogpiling".

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 10:08 AM

Sigh.

No, I have no animosity. You tried to draw a parallel between WW II and the Iraq war. The illogic of such a parallel is so obvious I was moved to cry out momentarily, because such un-reason is painful.

In any case, Bush had some wonderful opportunities to make things better, both before and after his Defining Moment of 9-11.

But he did not. He instead made things worse. His choices were made, his actions taken, on the basis of different principles than people belileved he had (those who believed he had any).

"Bush spending mopney on the Iraq War is JUST like FDR spending money on World War II" is a ridiculously improbable proposition, on the order of saying that a cat is just like an orangutang, because they both have fur and breathe. It's absurd on the face of it. Bush's invasion of Iraq was an elective course, pre-emptive and unilateral. Iraq had not invaded American soil, nor had it launched a military attack against an ally, as was the case in Bush Senior's little war in the sand over Kuwait. Bush could have chosen NOT to invade Iraq, limiting his pursuit of terrorists to Al Queda, focusing on the appropriate target, and retaining the sympathy and friendship of nations. Today, he has a lot of unnecessary blood on his hands because he chose otherwise. So do those who support him. A lot of unnecessary, unjustifiable, inappropriate bloodshed, mayhem and cold death. You may sanitize all this until the cows come home. Rationalize to your heart's content. The bottom line, when all the glorious phrases die in the wind, is that it was a bad choice cuausing unjustifiable death, homicide with a blunt instrument writ extraordinarily large in the sands of Mesopotamia.



Go figger.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 10:32 AM

Dickey, you said, "Your continued display of animosity toward anyone that dares to oppose your assertions indicates you are only interested in views that comply with yours."

(I added the italics.)

Well, here's the truth of it. We're all guilty of that. 99.999 % of people are really only interested in views that comply with their own. ;-) It's sad, but it's true. They listen to views that do not comply with their own only just long enough to sieze like a hungry raptor upon some detail or inconsistency or perceived weakness in the other person's argument which they can then use to attack and discredit the other person's argument. They seek victory and enhancement of their own identity (their sense of self) at the expence of someone else's identity (sense of self).

I am keenly aware of this tendency in myself as well as others. I watch it sardonically as it works out its nastiness in every political discussion on this forum. I realize that we are all quite prejudiced and subjective in our judgements, specially when it comes to controversial subjects like politics, religion, UFOs, coverups, etc....

And we all like to talk. And we all think we're right. I predict that this process will continue playing itself out over and over again until we all get old and die. And then it will recommence shortly following the beginning of our next incarnation.

It's more fun for those who have not yet acquired the ability to observe self in an accurate fashion. You could say that they are well cushioned by their own innocence, and will get to enjoy being "right" until the day they die.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 10:49 AM

I like Little Hawk's analysis; it is interesting to reflect that some hundreds of thousands of people have been caught short inthe middle of being as right as they possibly can by the sudden intrusion of shrapnel, lead slugs, overhwelming explosive force, flames, or other violent facets of matter, causing momentary excruciating pain followed by death (hopefully quick). Not to mention those who are slogging through life on artifical limbs or unhealed stumps (depending on their support system), or eyeless, or vegetative, as a result of near death collisions with armament. Or those whose losses of loved ones have thrown them into terminal depression and incurable despond.

These beings are adding up to a population of reincarnations coming up who are probably firmly convinced that Bush's invasion was a very poor idea indeed. These sentiments, most likely, will be accompanied by inexplicable but very intense emotions such as rage, grief, and the other feelings one typically generates when being deprived of a lifetime.

I predict a major generational disagreement in 12-15 years! :D

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 12:41 PM

Amos: I did not try "to draw a parallel between WW II and the Iraq war"

I drew a paralell to deficit spending now and then and the fact that if an even greater degree of deficit spending did not "ruin" us then, why do people claim it will "ruin" us now?

I think it is another artificial negative claim, a polarising issue to persuade more people to oppose the administration.

Amos seems concernend about people dying unecessarily. How many people die uncessarily every year with or without a war?

Actual Causes of death in the US in 2000:

Tobacco..............................435,000
Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity....400,000
Alcohol consumption...................85,000
Microbial Agents......................75,000
Toxic Agents..........................55,000
Motor Vehicle.........................43,000
Firearms..............................29,000
Sexual Behaviors......................20,000
Illicit Drug Use......................17,000
Total..............................1,159,000

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 12:55 PM

Oh yeah, there's a lot out there to get upset about, isn't there? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 01:01 PM

It is really good of you to search out hard data, old boy.

However, the fact that as a species we do many things to bump ourselves off either accidentally or covertly does NOT mean that it just, ethical or right-minded to seek out additional ways with which to augment the statistic.

As for why soaring deficits are bad for the economy, I can only suggest you look a little deeper into the subject. The glory of debt free living can barely be imagined by those who have been bullied, cowed, or harassed into living upside down. It is not a solid principle of good fidscal management no matter how rationalized it is.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 01:02 PM

http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/causes.html?source=DeathClock

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 01:10 PM

Amos,

You state:
"As for why soaring deficits are bad for the economy, I can only suggest you look a little deeper into the subject."

Did you even read the comment
"I drew a paralell to deficit spending now and then and the fact that if an even greater degree of deficit spending did not "ruin" us then, why do people claim it will "ruin" us now?"




As for why soaring deficits are bad under a Republican administration at war, and good under a Democratic administration at war, I can only suggest that you try to get beyond your own bigotry.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 01:17 PM

"Today, he has a lot of unnecessary blood on his hands because he chose otherwise. So do those who support him. A lot of unnecessary, unjustifiable, inappropriate bloodshed, mayhem and cold death. You may sanitize all this until the cows come home. Rationalize to your heart's content."

Gee, that is the way I feel about those "anti-Bush" folks who decided that Saddam should not have to comply with 12 years of UN resolutions, and gave him the impression that he could continue to stay in power and develop WMD, by protesting US actions with NO protest of the Iraqi violations.

Or is it only YOUR opinion that is ever valid?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 01:34 PM

Arguing about the relative merits of Democrats and Republicans is like trying to decide which is nicer...a rabid hyena or a bubonic plague-carrying rat.

Just to voice a couple of my stronger prejudices... (grin)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 01:40 PM

No problem, LH.

I just object to the double standard- either deficit spending IS bad, or it is not- It should NOT depend on the Party which is doing it.

We ALL have opinions- the trick is to figure out when something is stated as fact, and when it is opinion. I will argue the FACTS- ANY opinion is as valid as any other: That is NOT true about facts. Either they are, or are not valid- does not matter how deeply one wishes to believe in them.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 01:41 PM

Amos: "The glory of debt free living can barely be imagined"

I was here when the budget was supposedly balanced during the Clinton administration and I did not notice any glory. I did notice an irrational exuberance that caused a stock market bubble to burst, I did notice a rising Fed interest rate rising and I did notice gas prices rising and a slide into a recession.

Likewise I do not feel "bullied, cowed, or harassed into living upside down". I feel rather lucky that the economy has done well.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 01:58 PM

Clinton did not move the nation out of debt by a long shot. But Bush moved it deeper into it.

If the nation had been out of debt you would have seen a different picture indeed.

Deficit spending is -- in my _opinion_ -- ill-considered as a first choice policy. It over-extends the local economy and makes it dependent on the whims of factors in other nations, such as China.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 02:02 PM

"Deficit spending is -- in my _opinion_ -- ill-considered as a first choice policy. It over-extends the local economy and makes it dependent on the whims of factors in other nations, such as China."


An opinion that I can agree with.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 02:05 PM

Hmmm. Well, I think that in a general sense it is unwise for both individuals and societies to practice deficit spending, but there are times when it may be necessary. For instance, most people have to incur debt in order to buy a house. So they get a mortgage. Similarly, when a nation gets into a huge war it may need to mortgage its future to pay for that war...and that's just a question of national survival at that point. (if defeat is seen as unthinkable, which is normally the case)

Wars that are entered into by choice are a different matter from wars that are defensive in nature, and I believe that is Amos's point. For instance, Hitler freely chose to attack Poland, Norway, Denmark, the USSR, Holland, Belgium, the USA, and some other countries during WWII. They did not choose to attack him. Hitler did NOT, however, choose to fight the UK and France in 1939, they declared war on him over Poland. He then responded to that state of war with the UK and France. There's a difference, right?

Bush's war with Iraq was freely chosen by America, not by Iraq. The Iraqis have been the recipients of an unprovoked attack by a much superpower. That puts the USA in a rather less easily defensible light than supporters of this war would prefer, I should think, and in the view of most people in the world it was an unjustified attack based on false propaganda claims. So mortgaging your future on unprovoked aggression is not the same as mortgaging your future on legitimate self-defence, is it?

To go into debt when it is unavoidable is understandable. To do it capriciously is to behave irresponsibly.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 02:10 PM

"Bush's war with Iraq was freely chosen by America, not by Iraq. The Iraqis have been the recipients of an unprovoked attack by a much superpower."

There are those of us with the opinion that Iraq attacked a treaty ally, Kuwait, and the fighting was only stopped due to a cease-fire agreement. When Iraq refused to comply with the conditions of that cease-fire, even after repeated efforts over 12 years, the decision was made to resume combat, in order to remove a perceived threat ( the WMD development program).

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 02:24 PM

Al-Qaeda chose to attack US civilians in New York, Kenya, Tanzania and US military in Yemen preemptively.

That does fall under my definition of "unprovoked aggression"

Clinton chose to attack preemptively in Bosnia, Somalia, Iraq and in Afghanistan in retaliation.

Bush chase to attack the Taliban in Afghanistan in retaliation and The regime in Iraq preemptively.

That does not fall under my definition of "unprovoked aggression"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 02:25 PM

The perceived threat was a thin veneer of Bushwa, IMHO. It was either rampant manipulation for other reasons, or it was blatant stupidity.

The actual threat was mismanaged at the same time as the false one was invested with great effort, wasting of blood and money, and decimation of political capital.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 02:30 PM

Heh! Yes, I know, BB. That's an argument I can't take seriously...but I know that it's always possible to come up with such arguments if one wants to. That's how the human mind works. Hitler had the Germans convinced that his attack on Poland was legitimate defence too, after all. It's easy to convince people of anything that they want to be convinced of. You just tell them what they want to hear.

Young Japanese servicemen in 1941 were equally convinced that China had caused the war with Japan, and that Japan was legitimately defending itself against a conspiracy on the part of the USA, Britain, and China to destroy Japan. So they had no guilt whatsoever in hitting Clark Field, Hong Kong, the Dutch East Indies, and Pearl Harbor. It was "self-defence"!

People can justify anything in their own minds. Wars are started by choice. The one who starts them is the one who launches the attack. Wars that are "resumed" after a lengthy ceasfire are likewise again started by choice, are in fact a brand NEW war, and the one who starts them is the one who launches the attack. When he outguns the other side by 50:1 and he can't possibly lose, the sheer hypocrisy of it becomes so blatant to the surrounding community of nations that very few are fooled as to what is really going on (except among the ranks of the attackers themselves...they MUST convince themselves that they are "in the right"...morale would suffer badly otherwise, and that would imperil the mission).

Be assured that most German and Japanese soldiers in WWII believed implicity that they were doing "the right thing" when they went to war. They trusted their leaders and believed their country's war propaganda. This combination of patriotism and naivete is what warmongering demagogues depend on to achieve their aggressive ends. Most people are good people who would not dream of murdering their neighbours...but they will murder foreigners if given the order. There's a disconnect in their understanding of what they are really doing to other human beings.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 02:35 PM

What about the British duped into supporting the war against Germany? Germany had not attacked them- they were reacting to the attack upon Poland. Seems like they should have just accepted the German control instead of starting a war with 27 million deaths...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 02:37 PM

Be assured that most English and Canadian soldiers in WWII believed implicity that they were doing "the right thing" when they went to war. They trusted their leaders and believed their country's war propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 02:49 PM

BTW, Canada has been involved in a number of wars this century. Please let me know when ANY Canadian territory had been attacked.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 03:27 PM

What was the specific attack on America that caused it to enter WW1?


America's policy of isolation, and thus wanting stay out of any European affairs while also trying to broker a peace resulted in tensions with both Berlin and London. When a German U-boat sank the British liner Lusitania in 1915, a large passenger liner with 128 Americans also aboard, the United States President, Wilson, vowed "America was too proud to fight", and demanded an end to attacks on passenger ships. Germany complied. Wilson tried to mediate a compromise settlement; yet no compromise was discovered. Wilson also repeatedly warned that America would not tolerate unrestricted submarine warfare because it violated America's rights. Wilson was under great pressure from former president Teddy Roosevelt, who denounced German "piracy" and Wilson's cowardice. In January 1917, the Germans announced they would resume unrestricted submarine warfare. Berlin's proposal to Mexico to join the war as Germany's ally against the U.S. was exposed in February [The Zimmerman Telegram authorized the ambassador to offer Mexico the portions of the Southwest it had lost to the United States in the 1840s if it joined the Central Powers. But because Wilson had run for reelection in 1916 on a very popular promise to keep the United States out of the European war, he had to handle the telegram very carefully. Wilson did not publicize it at first, only releasing the message to the press in March after weeks of German attacks on American ships had turned public sentiment toward joining the Allies.] angering American opinion. After German submarines attacked several American merchant ships, sinking three, Wilson requested that Congress declare war on Germany, which it did on April 6, 1917. The U.S. House of Representatives approved the war resolution 373-50, the U.S. Senate 82-6, with opposition coming especially from German American districts such as Wisconsin. The U.S. declared war on Austria-Hungary in December 1917.

http://www.answers.com/topic/world-war-i

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 03:28 PM

That's right, BB. They all believed the same sorts of things. I know that, and that's why I am repelled by war movies that cast one side (whoever) as evil, nasty, vicious people who grin in an evil fashion as they mow down their helpless opponents. (this was the way Germans and Japanese were routinely depicted oftentimes in those old war movies, and I don't doubt that the German and Japanese war propaganda films of WWII were similarly distorted).

It's sad.

Countries almost always get into wars over various important interests they have, like: competing spheres of influence, trade considerations, access to vital land and resources, control of some large material agenda.

Your suggestion that the British (and French) could have ignored or swallowed the German attack on Poland is entirely worth considering...and it was certainly exactly what Hitler expected them to do! He grossly miscalculated their reaction, probably because he had been made overconfident by their previous lack of resolve in earlier crises he had provoked.

His next objective after Poland was in the East...Russia. So, if the French and British had decided to sell out the Poles, which they very well might have done, then I believe there would have followed a major war between Germany and Russia sometime in 1940 or '41, and no war in the West at all at that time. Farther on down the road? Hard to say. It would have depended on how well the Germans did in Russia.

Would that have been a better way to go from the point of view of Britain and France? Quite possibly. But who knows? It would not have been nearly so good for the Russians.

As an aside, Britain and France were deeply upset by the Russian attack on Finland in the Winter War as well as the earlier Russian move into Poland in concert with the Germans, and the French were close to declaring war on Russia even after they were already at war with Germany! It's incredible in retrospect that they could have been so foolish as to contemplate that.

I think that everyone would have been better off if the citizens in ALL the involved countries had refused to believe their leaders and had refused to go to war for them. ;-) But how does one arrange that? Most people are essentially fairly sheeplike, and they will obey orders from higher authority, even if those orders cause them to commit mass murder on foreigners.

The propaganda in all the fighting countries was distorted, hate-filled, and intended to inflame people to go out and kill for their country. That's standard prodedure.

The reality was that all those major countries were jockeying for position in the world...Germany, France, the UK, Russia, the USA, Japan, and Italy. It was inevitable that in their jockeying for control of spheres of influence, they would come up against each other. The British and French were only willing to let either Germany or Russia go so far...but no farther. Germany and Russia had both suffered great losses of territory in WWI and were looking to restore their fortunes. They were in an expanding phase (as the USA is now...), looking to enlarge their spheres of influence. That would bring them into conflict with each other and with Britain and France, and eventually the USA. Japan was taking advantage of the decline and weakness of a hereditary enemy (China) and of their own emergence into the only modern military power in East Asia. The USA was not willing to tolerate either Japan or Germany expanding beyond a certain point, again because it would impinge on American spheres of influence. The USA held the wild cards, because it had the greatest GNP in the world, and was basically unattackable behind 2 great oceans.

They all acted in their own self-interest. Their people and a lot of other people paid the price. They all made up grand and noble-sounding stories to prove why it was all worthwhile. It wasn't. It was a tragic, incredible waste of human lives on a vast scale.

Have you seen the recent Japanese movie made in 2005 about the sinking of the battleship Yamato? It's an interesting view of the psychology of people on the Japanese side, seen through the eyes of patriotic young cadet sailors on the doomed ship caught up in the events of the time. They managed to avoid saying anything inflammatory about the Americans during the entire movie, and it has some very striking scenes. Those young men, like all young men everywhere who go to war, figured that they were defending their homeland and their loved ones, and they were ready to die if necessary. War is simply a very, very sad and tragic business. Those Japanese cadets felt exactly the same way as the young American airmen who bombed and torpedoed them, strafed them on the decks of the ship, slaughtered them by the hundreds, and even strafed the survivors in the water after the ship went down. (that last part was not shown in the movie)

War is murder. Bloody murder. If people were not so sheeplike, they would not so easily be fooled into doing it.

Once it starts, though, it takes its own inevitable course until someone gives up fighting. That's why I say the onus is on those who either launch the initial attack(s) or who make the initial declaration of war. They are the ones who open the door to chaos and disaster.

In the case of the invasion of Kuwait, it was Saddam. In the case of the Iraq war in 2003, it was the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 07:34 PM

It's very rare that a real villain ever considers himself to be a villain. Even if he knows down in his guts that it's power-lust and / or greed, he manages to convince himself that he has a good, moral reason for doing what he wants to do. Psychiatrists call it "rationalization." In his own mind, he is the hero of the story.

Even Cesare Borgia justified all the treachery, deceit, and assassinating by saying that he was trying to unite the independent Italian city-states into one cohesive nation (under his leadership, of course) in order to drive out foreign invaders and exploiters like Spain, France, and Austria. And if he had to invade the city-states and kill their leaders in order to save them? Well, it was all in a good cause!

And the followers of such leaders? Little Hawk said it neatly:    "This combination of patriotism and naiveté. . . ."

And the beat goes on.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 09:45 AM

Don,

And YOUR excuse for your actions? Are you not just as human as the rest of us? How do YOU know that YOU are the hero, and not Bush?

"he manages to convince himself that he has a good, moral reason for doing what he wants to do. Psychiatrists call it "rationalization." In his own mind, he is the hero of the story."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 11:29 AM

Looks like this dogpile has turned into a discussion.


What were the motivations of the Japanese and the Muslim extremists for attacking the US?

I can't include the Nazis because they did not directly attack the US but they did attack other countries in Europe.

What were their goals?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 03:17 PM

"And YOUR excuse for your actions? Are you not just as human as the rest of us? How do YOU know that YOU are the hero, and not Bush?"

First of all, BB, what actions have I performed that I need to be excused for? And excused by whom? If you are referring to the fact that I am highly critical of Bush and his administration, let me point out to you that if a patriotic American sees his or her elected leaders involved in wrong-doing, it is their duty as good citizens to call them on it. It is unpatriotic not to do so.

Whether one is a villain or a hero is not simply arbitrary. There are certain ethical and moral imperatives that determine the difference. I could present you with a long list—a list I am sure you are familiar with, whether you accept it or not—of what constitutes these imperatives, but it's been my experience that most civilized people agree as to what they are.

High on the list of villainy is when elected officials lie to the citizens in order to get the nation into a needless war, leading to the deaths of thousands of troops, the maiming of tens of thousands more, and the killing of tens if not hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis in order to gain geopolitical power over the world's oil reserves for the purpose of intimidating other countries, such as oil-dependent China, and at the same time, fattening of the wallets of their personal friends with lavish, no-bid contracts for rebuilding Iraq after being responsible for destroying it in the first place. Not to mention starting a civil war that is liable to go on for generations. Or promising the electorate all kinds of programs, then neglecting to fund them, rendering the promise hollow. Example (one of dozens):   "No Child Left Behind." Or how about this one? Many instances of riding rough-shod over the Constitution and Bill of Rights after taking an oath to "preserve and protect?"

I could present you with a huge list of villainies—which I'm sure you would disagree with—but why go on? Others see what you refuse to.

But suffice it to say that I have not caused the death of one single human being, whereas Bush has given orders—for no moral or ethical reason—that caused the deaths of tens if not hundreds of thousands. So on a continuum running from heroism to villainy, where, relatively, do Bush and I stand?

I don't consider myself any kind of hero. Neither do I qualify as a villain. Bush, on the other hand. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Barry Finn
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 03:53 PM

Bush is no hero, he is by far one of the most dangerous humans on the planet today. I'm ashamed to admit that he our President, hopefully that too will soon change.
In 2 days I will be joined hopefully by hundreds of thousands marching on the Pentagon who share the same veiw. To get rid of Bush through impeachment & demand an end to this war.
There I will be joined by those that I consider America's heros.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 04:25 PM

Good for you, Barry!

Heroes are those who act on matters of moral principle when it would be a lot easier—or less dangerous—for them to just look the other way. Heroes act on principle even when they have nothing to gain, and their actions may, indeed, cost them dearly. The person who risks his or her own life to save someone else. Or the whistle-blower who acts even when he or she knows that it will cost them their job. Or those who voice their protest even when doing so could get them thrown in jail.

Villains are those who do something they know, or at least suspect, to be wrong, but invent reasons—excuses—for going ahead anyway, rationalizing to themselves and lying to others to justify their actions. Often they tell the lie so often and so vociferously that they come to believe it themselves.

As do, especially on a national or political level, those afflicted with "patriotism and naiveté," who become their apologists when others protest.

The lowest level in Danté's Inferno is reserved for those who, when they see evil being done, maintain a "colorless neutrality" and avoid "getting involved."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 04:39 PM

"The lowest level in Danté's Inferno is reserved for those who, when they see evil being done, maintain a "colorless neutrality" and avoid "getting involved.""

You mean like those who watched Saddam violate the UN resolutions for 12 years, kill how many Kurds, and then would not demonstrate that he should comply with UN demands, but instead protested any enforcement of those resolutions?


You have missed my point- YOU are making a value judgement that the war was unjustified. Others differ. So who made you God?

I am sure there were those who felt the war against Hitler was unjust, since Germany did not attack the US. But Saddam DID attack US forces in the region, over the 12 years, by attacking those patroling the no-fly zone. The UN resolution gave hime the chance to comply-
BECAUSE of people such as you who protested enforcement and made no effort to demand that Saddam comply, tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands have been killed. It seems, IMHO, that you bear some responsibility.

Or is it only YOUR opinion that matters in the world?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 04:57 PM

BB has a fine point, one that deserves an answer. There is no argument that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein killing people in it. There is some question as to what he was not in compliance with, exactly. If he had in fact discontinued all WMD programs but was simply being an intransigent ass as far as saying so, that is a different matter than if he were in fact secretly doing the things Rice, Rove, Bush and Cheney asserted he was.

Furthermore, you are waving a wide brush, Bruce, when you speak as though everyone who was opposed to Bush's war on Iraq was also silent about Saddam's crimes against the Kurds. I don't think this is justified as a general conclusion.

Finally there is the question of unilateral war and preemptive invasion of a sovereign nation. While Bush, having gotten himself appointed Commander in Chief had the power to invade Iraq, and used it, he did not have the consent of the majority of the people in the country or the full ratification of Congress; to get even their condoning of his actions he had to flood the media with exaggerations and falsehoods.

Being a man of action may be better, especially in a leader, than being a man of no-action, UNLESS the actions are ill-informed, misestimated and destructive in their net effect, as this one has so far been.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 05:31 PM

You raise some useful questions there, Dickey...

"What were the motivations of the Japanese and the Muslim extremists for attacking the US?"

Well, for the time being, how about I just discuss the Japanese? The Japanese went through a period of governmental power struggles and instability between the world wars, and it eventually ended up with the Army basically controlling Japan's government (with the Emperor as the symbolic head of state, but the Japanese Army really was calling the shots as far as I can see, and the Emperor was rubber-stamping their decisions, so to speak). It was Army generals who were put in the key positions of political power. This developed into an era of aggressive expansionism on the part of the Japanese. They were seeking a fight with China, for a number of reasons. One was that China was already a hereditary enemy of Japan going way, way back. Another was that the Japanese were a very large nation of people crowded onto some relatively small islands, and they were very short of both land and certain vital resources. Accordingly, they sought to acquire overseas possessions in Korea, Mongolia, and China so they could obtain more good land and resources to feed their growing economy.

Now...those were the motivations behind the actions of those in power. They were not the motivations behind the actions of a vast number of ordinary Japanese soldiers, sailors, and civilians, who were simply doing what people everywhere do...trying to make their way in life, find wives and husbands, raise families, support themselves, etc...

The Japanese Army provoked incidents with the Chinese in order to create a pretext for war. They made it appear that the Chinese had attacked them...but this was not true. However, the Japanese people naturally believed that it was true. Therefore, the motivations of ordinary Japanese soldiers and civilians were, as always, to protect their nation, their families, their loved ones. They fell for false propaganda.

As the fighting continued in China ordinary Japanese were encouraged to make sacrifices to support the war effort, and they did. Victories were won, but the fighting went on. There were a few voices in the Japanese press who did not echo the offical line, but they were silenced, and the media supported the officlal government line. The fighting in China went on.

The USA had decided that the Japanese were expanding too much in East Asia and that this was injurious to American and British interests. (a case of competing empires, as usual) The USA gave substantial assistance to China. This was not appreciated by Japan, just as the USA, for example, does not appreciate people supplying its enemies when it is at war.

FDR then made the crucial move. He placed a trade embargo on Japan's overseas supply of oil and steel, and got the British and Dutch to join the USA in that embargo.

Japan's main source of steel had been the USA. Their main source of oil had been in the Dutch East Indies. They were now placed in a position where their entire war machine would literally run out of fuel and steel within about one year and be unable to remain effective. This meant that they would be unable to sustain their campaign in China, a campaign to which they had already committed the entire strength of their nation.

They were not going to just give up and go home. It was inevitable that they would now fight the USA, Britain, and Holland to get the oil that was in the Dutch East Indies, and to secure other vital resources in those areas.

The young Japanese who served in their armed forces were unaware that Japan was in the wrong in this matter. They were deeply patriotic and they grew up in a society which encouraged the individual to subordinate his own needs for the needs of "the group" or the nation. The spirit of self-sacrifice was basic to their understanding of life. Thus they were seen as "fanatical" and "suicidal" by Americans and Europeans, but if you'd been born Japanese in that era, you would probably have thought just as they did. It was normal behaviour in their society. (We do things they think are crazy too, you know...) ;-)

So, here's what their motivations were (the ordinary soldiers and civilians, I mean):

1. to serve their country and defend it against foreign attack
2. to honor their traditions and way of life
3. to fight back against those who would destroy their way of life
4. to be courageous and loyal

So their goals, Dickey, were the same goals as young American soldiers have....to defend their country, their families, and their way of life.

They were fooled and manipulated by a barrage of government and media propaganda that made them think it happened this way:

1. China attacked us first. (not true)
2. We must not let China defeat us.
3. Now the USA is helping China!
4. Now the USA, Britain, and Holland are ganging up on us, and cutting off our oil and steel in order to cause our defeat by China!
5. We must fight them all to prevent the defeat of our nation.

You see...if you accept one false proposition (that you were attacked first) it can lead to an almost endless series of bad decisions. It can lead to disaster.

I suggest that that is what is now happening to America in regards to Iraq (which never attacked the USA).


Regarding the goals of the German soldiers and civilians in WWII? Pretty much the same, but with a few additional wrinkles.

1. They were trying to restore the honor of Germany after the losses suffered in WWI.
2. They were trying to recover areas of land given up by Germany after WWI (but Hitler didn't stop there...he went farther)
3. They were, as usual, trying to be loyal, patriotic citizens and defend their homeland and their loved ones against foreign attack (as they saw it).

Their views were shaped by their national media which conducted a vigorous propaganda campaign over many years to convince ordinary Germans that the nation was under direct threat of deadly enemies such as Jews, Communists, the British, the French, etc...

As usual, most ordinary Germans believed the propaganda. That's how it happens. Governments manipulate their people through the media. This is what your government does as well, and that's why your people are allowing themselves to be used as pawns in places like Iraq.

As for the Muslim extremists, they also believe they are defending their homes, their families, and their way of life against a deadly foreign threat from the USA and/or Israel.

Everyone thinks he's doing the right thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 08:56 PM

LH: I do not think the US government owns or controls the media. When the NYT was asked not to publish a story on wiretapping, they refused.

I think the only time the media complied with a request from the governmnet was during the Cuban missle crisis.

I do not see a trade embargo as a military action.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 09:48 PM

Dickey, the fact is that the major media chains in the USA are owned by a few enormous corporate entities, and that what gets on the news and how it is covered is determined by a few powerful men in the management of those corporate entities. When you consider that your government itself is controlled by a consortium of major corporate entities (among whom are those ones who own the main medio chains) then you do have what amounts to a controlled media...and a controlled government. It's not a government "of the people, by the people, for the people" anymore...if it ever was. It's a government of the billionaires, by the billionaires, for the billionaires, and there isn't a darned thing you or I can do about that.

This doesn't mean that every single writer or media person in America is controlled. It just means that most of them are at any given time. Most of them is enough to do easily the job of manipulating the public down any path the controllers desire, mainly through the tactics of appealing to fear, greed, and consumption.

I don't see an embargo as a military action either, but I do see it as the kind of action that can definitely bring on a war...under certain circumstances. Roosevelt knew exactly what he was doing. He was putting the Japanese in a position where they would go to war, because he wanted the USA to get involved in WWII as soon as possible, and that was the most expeditious way of doing it. He HAD to have a genuine outside attack on some part of America. He couldn't find a practical or feasible way to provoke Germany into attacking the USA, but he could do it with the Japanese, so he did. The rest fell into place perfectly. I think FDR's only miscalculation was his failure to realize how effective the Japanese Navy and its aircraft were...so the initial situation proved much tougher than what he had expected up until the Battle of Midway evened the balance. After that, the Japanese were doomed to lose by steady attrition and lack of resources.

My point, in any case, was that ordinary Japanese people during the war had absolutely no idea their country was in the wrong. In this respect they were just like most ordinary people in other countries that commit aggression on someone. The natural reaction is to assume your country is in the right and rally round the flag to defend it. That is what every citizen's entire upbringing from the time they are a small child prepares them to do. Why should it be surprising that they fall into line so easily?