Bush, more of a threat than Saddam

[Jester_11218]

The media is depicting Saddam as the most dangerous threat to world peace since Adolph Hitler. Do they realize that the Bush/PNAC environmental policies are a greater threat to life on this planet than anything else that has ever existed, sans nuclear weapons. Add a renewed nuclear weapons program and you have the most dangerous government in the history of the planet. The media should make someone qualify their comments when such outrageous claims are made. Fact, the world is now a more dangerous place as a result of actions and non-actions of the Bush/PNAC administration. More people have died as a result of American military action in Iraq than would have died over the next 10 years. Throw in the tons of depleted uranium now polluting Iraq and you can accurately say that the US is and will be responsible for more death in Iraq than Saddam would have been if left alone and if the UN inspectors would have been permitted to do their job.

This nation is a black eye on humanity under the Bush/PNAC administration.

[forgethell]

1. Nobody should have to qualify anything

that they say! If they are saying foolish things, it will be apparent. If not, why should they change what they say? Unlike a lot of people on this board, I trust in the intelligence and judgment of the American people. They are often wrong, but when they realize it, they change things.

To force people to "qualify" what they say is nothing but propaganda, IMHO.

Merry Christmas, or whatever.

[Jester_11218]

2. You don't realize

When you have a misinformed electorate you have people voting for things that they do not want to. If you support someone or someting like a war on Iraq, and your views are based on inaccurate or incomplete information, that is dangerous.

When people support invading Iraq because they think that a 9/11 link has been established, then you have a huge problem. The media sits quiet.

There are many ways to lie. Partial facts, false imoressions, selective corrections of false statements by people being interviewd...etc.

People are being lied to and it is driving public opinion.

The US Press was rated 32nd in the world by Reporters Without Borders this year when it comes to freedom of the press. Without a free press you do not have democracy. Democracy can not survive without truth. We are in huge trouble.

Peace,
Jesse

[forgethell]

5. People can see through

lies, eventually. Let them speak. The facts will stand out. If freedom of expression means anything, it means the right to say what you want, even if you are wrong, malevolent, and lying. YOU can then come back and tell the truth. Whoever has the more convincing case will win over the public.

Or not. But in either case, both sides have the right to speak. and the people have the right to decide. We cannot simply ASSUME we are right, so the other side must be shut up. If we can't convince the voting public to vote for us, it might be wise to ask ourselves if we are wrong, or if our methods of communication are ineffective. Or just why we can't do it. Nobody, in the current political climate, is going to make people "qualify" their statements to reflect a liberal or leftist viewpoint. And I don't think they should. I have confidence in our ability to persuade, and you should too.

All this does not mean that wwe shouldn't present our views, just that we shouldn't ask them to "qualify" their own.

[Snivi Yllom]

3. Saddam ws a horrible and dangerous man

Saddam killed hundreds of thousands and it is good he is caught...

But you have a point about Bush. Frankly the US under a totalitarian Bush could become as evil as any of the things Saddam ever did. It frightens me.

[JailBush]

4. Amen!

George W. Bush is indeed the world's biggest menace, and I think most people outside the U.S. realize it. I would love to see an international survey querying people about the ten people they hate most. I would bet money that George Bush would top the list. I suspect a few members of his administration and Bill Gates would also rank among the top ten.

Osama bin Laden is far more controversial. George Bush and Saddam Hussein are pure evil and are hated by millions of their own subjects, but many people regard Osama as a hero.

That says a lot about George Bush, huh?

[forgethell]

6. bin Laden?

Controversial? Oh my! Is evil subject to a vote?

[Gringo]

7. Saddam WAS a horrible threat...

but only to Iraqis.

I'm slightly conflicted, because I hate for us to stand idly by and do nothing as a tyrant brutalizes his people.

I opposed the Iraq war for this reason: Iraq was NOT an expansionist power, and had stayed within its borders for 12 years (and even the Kuwait adventure wasn't a black/white case).


To invade and overthrow a country simply because our leader SAYS he is a threat and CLAIMS he has weapons that MIGHT be a threat to us is setting a horrible precedent.

The Indonesian government presided over the slaughter of over half a million E. Timorese, and the US did nothing until 1999, when Bill Clinton basically told them to "cut it out" and they did.

Such slaughters are commonplace around the world, often committed by governments supported by the US and US corporations. The fact that we only choose to invade them when they happen to be sitting on a ton of oil shows our intentions in doing so to be less than pure.