[dogscoff]

f**ks up in order to make money.
(snip)
...monster that has to be stopped...
...parallels drawn between Bush and 1930s Hitler...
...the US was bound to go on the rampage...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OMG do you actually belive this??

Yes, and you'd better believe I'm not the only one. I'm not some radical islamic fundamentalist, either- I'm a pretty normal, liberal-minded European guy with a home and a job and a regular life.

I admit I haven't read all 95 pages of this thread, but I really can't imagine a defensible argument saying that Bush and Hitler are moral equivalents.

There was an excellent article posted about a month ago which summarised the similarities. It was frightening. I'll try to dig it out but it won't be easy.
EDIT: Finallly, I found it. Click here for Bush/ Hitler comparison.

The main similarities are in Bush's (and Blair's) use of a specific terrorist incident to create a non-specific perceived threat, and generate an atmosphere of fear and distrust among the public, which in turn allows them to go on bombing sprees abroad, violate human rights (illegal arrest/ detention) and introduce anti-freedom / anti-privacy legislation in the name of "national security".

but as I said motivation is not the key issue.

I think motivation is absolutely the key issue. You are being led by a man who is prepared to start a war and cause thousands of deaths in order to increase his own personal profits, and that doesn't bother you? It should be your interests he is serving, not his own.

2) The ACTIONS of the US now and throughout history is what needs to be judged--

Yes, the ACTIONS of the US. The actions of the USA (and UK) since Bush came to power have been catastrophic.

From Colin Powell: "It's why we participate in all of these great international organizations."

HA!

There is nothing in American experience or in American political life or in our culture that suggests we want to use hard power.

Again, HA!

Will the US "take over" Iraqi oil production and reap vast wealth from them?
...

Oil $$: the Iraqi oil $$ will be used to rebuild that country, and may not be sufficient to do so.

It's more subtle than simply going in and stealing Iraq's wealth. It has long been understood by most powermongers that invading, conquering and annexing other countries is politically incorrect, and risky business indeed.

Iraqi oil will be used by Iraqi people to rebuild Iraq, yes. That was always the plan. What is now coming to light is that nearly all that rebuilding (an estimatedd 100billion dollars' worth) will be contracted out to US companies with very close links to Bush and his cronies. Oh, and apparently they've been planning for all this since before 9/11. Now can you see why I'm so cynical?

But you seem to have ignored my earlier question about the direction of British politics. Do you really think Britain is more strongly allied with Europe than the US?

Culturally, I think the Brits are closer to Europe than the US, so we ought to be heading that way. Unfortunately, because of the language thing, most people here don't realise that and lean toward the US. Blair has always tried to show himself as pro-european, but now he has his head up Bush's arse. Of course the two shouldn't be mutually exclusive, but really I think they are.

I have no idea where Blair will go or what he'll do next. I used to think I had an idea about what he wants and what's going on in his head, but his motivations are a mystery to me now. He's constantly contradicting himself, saying one thing while doing another... add to that the cocoon of spin and bull**** he has woven about himself and he is utterly opaque. He won't ever be getting my vote again. (And I'll never vote tory- too corrupt.)

Personally I think the best thing for this country would be to extend the boundaries of London a couple hundred miles north and west so that Ken Livingstone (Mayor of London) is in charge of the entire country. He has his flaws but I believe he is at least uncorrupted and working for the good of the people he represents. That's the best you can ask from a politician, and the one thing you never seem to get...

(The French bashing in the UK was certainly not any less than it was here.)

I would disagree with that, unless the US franch-bashing was very mild.

Maybe the motivations for it are wrong. But you can do the right things for the wrong reasons, you just have to make sure those wrong reasons don't taint the process.

Impossible. As soon as you do anything like that for the wrong reasons, the process becomes irrevocably tainted. Motivation is everything.

[ April 17, 2003, 11:31: Message edited by: dogscoff ]