Why do you hate Bush?

[Mickalov]

I support communism and socialsim - but I do support Bush and I do support the war in Iraq. I'm not going to say why at the moment, but I am curious to why "the left" absolutly hate the guy? Is it just because he isn't a leftest democrat? Or what are your reasons?

[JKP]

Lol, is this a joke?

[Mickalov]

No I'm serious. I'm trying to get all views of the story before I draw any conclusions.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

I don't support Bush because he's an incompetant, he tries to force his religion on people, he invaded Iraq by lieing to the world, he is against gay rights, he's a big capitalist, he's nationalist, he passed the patriot act, the no child left behind act, and whatever retarded act that made "constitution day" a holiday, and he's ignorant (didn't know the difference between Kurds, Sunnis, and Shi'ites when invading Iraq, doesn't bother to learn the difference between Slovenia and Slovakia before meeting with one of their presidents, etc.)

How can you claim to support communism or socialism and support George Bush and the Iraq War at the same time?

[LSD]

I am curious to why "the left" absolutly hate the guy?

um... where to start...

How about the big three?

He's a social conservative who believes in imposing anachronistic religious moralism,
He's an economic liberal who believes in increasing corporate power.
He's a internationalist imperialist who believes in spreading US corporate power around the world.

Isn't that enough?

[Technique3055]

1. I find the war wrong on infinity levels, if need be, I can exaggerate later.

2. I am pro-choice.

3. I am for gay marriage.

4. The Patriot Act makes me sick.

5. Tax cuts for the rich make me cry.

6. I oppose CAFTA and other free trade agreements, which Bush supports.

7. He is an extremely bad leader. All politics aside, if his approval rating is so low, and he's done so little to unite the country following the elections, there's something wrong.

8. He isn't very good at seperating religious beliefs from political beliefs.

[Jaded Revolutionary]

I can't exactly understand how someone can support the Left, yet support Bush..

- There was no reasoning into invading Iraq. There was never any weapons of mass destruction, and he lied to his country by saying otherwise. What was that other claim of his? That's right, it'll reduce terrorism. It's actually CAUSED more terrorism. The London Bombings, Madrid bombings, god knows what else'll be next. They say there's no link, but everyone knows that there is. I'd like to know why exactly the troops remain in Iraq and how many more innocent people have to be killed before Bush realizes the harm he is doing. Ask Cindy Sheehan about that one.

- He is a hypocritical conservative who is trying to combine church and state, and force his religion onto others. He claims to be pro-life yet he invaded Iraq for no reason. See the hypocrisises here? But because he uses the bible as his handbook, he has the Christian Right on his side so this is why he gets voted in every single time.

- As someone said, he is a definite Capitalist who does nothing for the poor, but gave tax cuts to the rich.

- He's a terrible leader in general. He can't do public speaking to save his life, and he is constantly saying the wrong thing. He has no degree of intellect whatsoever, and the only reason he went to Harvard or whatever (which he brags about) is because Daddy could afford to send him there.

- Above all, he doesn't give a damn about his country. He showed how callous he was with his actions pertaining to Hurricane Katrina. Although, because of his actions he has lost most of the support he once had, which is a good thing. Few people will support him now.

I really recommend you watch Fahrenheit 9/11. Even if you hate Michael Moore, it's an brilliant and honest look into Bush.

[HoorayForTheRedBlackandGreen]

In all honesty, I'd still be a democrat if it wasn't for Bush. I love ya' Bush! Thanks for showing me the path to socialism!

[comradesteele]

theres a quote by geogre bush which is something like this
"free nations are peaceful nation, free nations do not attack other nations, free nations do not devoloped wepons of mass destruction"

oh and he said
"the best way to effeicently save enrgy, is to use energy more efficently"

oh and
"i belive one day human beings and fish can co exist peacefully"

oh and
"i know how hard it is to put food on your family"

oh and

"It would be a mistake for the United States Senate to allow any kind of human cloning to come out of that chamber."

theres more, i got a calender with one a day

[Jerseyred]

I dont support bushy because the man is a whore for big oil. More money goes for war and oil than anything else and he knows what he is doing and just doesnt care.

I also dont like his right wingers ramming god down my throat all day and nite.

[TheReadMenace]

Wow.

Even if you aren't a socialist or a leftist of any kind, just looking at Bush in light of recent events should be a flag.

The asshole spends a good deal of time at his ranch. He doesn't care about democracy. He acts against the will of the people (and the world, for that matter). He and his administration not only take steps to rape Muslims, but various other people as well - for instance, the government has reserved the right to attain people in Ireland indefinitely, of all places. He supports US intervention in just about anyplace it might be profitable - ie, Guantanamo. He's a religious conservative. He's a hypocrite. He can't even perform a fundamental analysis of social, political, economic, or cultural issues; he still thinks terrorists attacked us because they hate freedom.

Need more?

Andrew

[{GR}Raine]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 12:07 AM
In all honesty, I'd still be a democrat if it wasn't for Bush. I love ya' Bush! Thanks for showing me the path to socialism!
haha, me too, without the current administration, id have had much less interest in politics in general!

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 10:27 PM
I support communism and socialsim - but I do support Bush and I do support the war in Iraq. I'm not going to say why at the moment, but I am curious to why "the left" absolutly hate the guy? Is it just because he isn't a leftest democrat? Or what are your reasons?
If he was a Democrat, I still hate him. Aside from all the particular reasons people have given already, he's the symbol (any president is really) of capitalism and war. He's had a much bigger opportunity to persue a much more agressive imperialist agenda than his recent predacessors and so I think the hatred of Bush (by most of the contry not just radicals) is a reaction to that. Clinton had to say his bombings were humanitarian which in a certain sense restricted him from an all-out occupation and "regime change" -- although not entirely as he tried to do these things.

So if you are on the left, why do you support an occupation? Is it because you feel that democracy is more progressive than a dictatorship? If so then most of us would agree, but what the US is doing can not really produce a democracy, only a sham-democracy where people vote but are only told the name and region of the candidates the day of the election and Paul Bremmer gets to decide the conditions for the elections. As many dictatorships (as well as the US itself have shown) elections do not automatically equal democracy. Democracy is full participation of people in the decision making of the government and can not be produced (neither could socialism in my opinion) only through the barell of (another nations) gun.

[bassplayingbiker]

Bush is the worst thing that could happen to this country, and every other country on the face of the planet. He would destroy everything that doesn't resemble what he believes to be right. He can take his god, money, power, friends, and bullshit, and go straight to hell.

[bezdomni]

How can you support the imperialist war in Iraq and the representative of the bourgois class while also supporting socialism?

That's kind of like a person who kills virgins in the name of satan, while also claiming to be a christian.

George Bush has only the interests of the bourgois class in his (very narrow) mind. He hinders any movement dedicated to the common good. A socialist cannot truly support Bush because Bush wants to create an "ownership society" and increase unnecessary consumerism, globalism, free trade agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA and expand anti-worker policies.

A true supporter of socialism cannot support the War in Iraq because it is a war for the United States to expand its capitalist empire into foreign nations. It was an unjust war with no support from the global community, largely because there was no valid reason to go to war.

Basically, Bush embraces a skewed form of laizzez-faire capitalism, therefore limiting the prosperity of humanity.

"The issue is capitalism versus socialism. I am for socialism because I am for humanity" -Eugene V. Debs

[*PRC*Kensei]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 10:27 PM
I support communism and socialsim - but I do support Bush and I do support the war in Iraq. I'm not going to say why at the moment, but I am curious to why "the left" absolutly hate the guy? Is it just because he isn't a leftest democrat? Or what are your reasons?
i hate bush cause he's an ass & one of the biggest living treats to the world. he Is the personafication of capitalism himself :P

The war in iraque is like poking into a bee hive with a stick: it whas once silent, but now it has awakened and will not rest till it stinged you.

[EneME]

For me, it is all of what was mentioned above, and it is also personal. He's a social conservative, who believes his way is the right way, and that HIS religion should be crammed down our throats no matter what. He supports international imperialism and capitalism, NOT DEMOCRACY, and he plans on getting what he wants by any means necessary, be it: murder, fraud, or deciet. I personally loathe him and his father because I, my family, and my country have been greatly affected by their foreign policy. You have no clue as to how evil these men are... :angry:

[adreamofequality]

mickalov ur kidding right? if u support bush y are u even on this site? i cant believe u posted that

[La Comédie Noire]

I do not support Bush because he is a pawn of capitalist Imperialism. He has lied and tramped all over America's once great democracy, but sad to say it has become a norm amongst all presidents since Kennedy was assassinated :(

For Instance:

He says he won't put the military on the boarder to mexico for humane reasons but whats more humane boarder guards? or people wandering in the desert until they die delirious and dehydrated? He just wants to exploit Immigrant workers.

[Livetrueordie]

i do not support Bush because he is more a threat to life than any nation on the planet.


That's right, it'll reduce terrorism. It's actually CAUSED more terrorism.this is true the last suicide bombing in iraq before 2003 was in the 14th century...

mikalov can you tell me why you support Bush?

[bombeverything]

It is either a joke (which I am hoping) or this person is simply an idiot who believes that the democrats are a left-wing party and is genuinely asking the question.

[Xiao Banfa]

Jesus fucking christ, this is elementary shit.
But it's more the administration that any leftist should hate. the monkey man is more of an ignorant, narrow-minded halfwit who does not understand the world.
I don't think anyone should hate him, that would be pointless.
The UN weapons inspectors were screaming for more time and Hussein wanted to comply yet the most arrogant war crime on par with the invasion of Poland 39' was carried out. The major powers have been scratching the globe for oil in recent years. Venezuela has more oil reserves than the US. Iraq has the 2nd biggest potential for oil production in the world. Wake up!
You could find this out by reading the papers, even.
Please my socialist-Bushist don't refer to the WAR MONGERING Democrats as left- for the sake of my lunch.

[Morpheus]

I don't hate Bush, I hate the system he represents.

[Reds]

I dont hate bush because its fairly clear to me the bush is just the front man for some larger conspiracy.

[bombeverything]

I don't know if I would call it a conspiracy. These people actually believe their own propaganda. I believe that it is a common misconception that those who oppose Bush are against him personally -- as if eliminating Bush was the solution.

If only it were this easy.

[Free Palestine]

Honestly, I have no idea where to begin, nor do I want to type out a long and comprehensive response. Also, I think it's silly to blame it all on Bush the sock puppet anyway. Who really believes this idiot is in control? (Besides other idiots)

[Santos]

Bush is a Tool. He is the frontman for a devious group of people running this show behind the scenes. They are the capitalist pigs only interested in money,oil, etc... and willing to do whatever, however and wherever it takes to get it as long as their agenda and goals are met. All along, hiding behind this illusion of protecting our freedom, they are dropping bombs, killing kids, families and destroying lives. Just my 2 cents.

[C_Rasmussen]

I don't like Bush. Two words conservative capitalist.

[Wasted7]

I am against bush like almost all of the people on this site however I wish alot of you would provide this guy with solid reasons without resorting to name calling or blunt statements such as "i hate bush cause he's an ass" this just proves your own intelliectual immaturity.

If this werent bad enough instead of directing your anger at bush you direct it at the guy himself Mickalov who is asking why he should oppose bush how can you expect to educate people when you call them "an idiot."

The more i explore this site the more i am becoming increasingly disillusioned. The fanatical hatred of anyone who opposes your systems of belief is quite frankly disgusting.

[ack]

Tax cuts for the wealthy.
He's almost made taxes regressive instead of progressive like they should be.

[slim]

Wasted7,

Well said, i totally agree.

Some of you may hate Bush with a passion but you must have solid reasons.

If we resort to what has been called childish namecalling then we are just as bad as the capitalist media that have brainwashed the public into hating communists and leftists. Those who love freedom are seen as the enemy through irrational fear without reason.

We must not return them that favour by alienating ourselves even more whilst degrading educated arguments to the level that capitalists argue.

Let us embrace this chance to form a solid reason why to oppose Bush. You may think "this is easy" or "baby stuff" but is it? Taxes and Iraq are regrettable policies but they are not Bushes sole choice alone. The influence of his party and his supporters also bears weight. We must oppose the Bush administration with efficiency and solidarity.

Do chara,

Slim. Sil Anmachadhra.
Clann Boru

[*PRC*Kensei]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 12:00 AM
i do not support Bush because he is more a threat to life than any nation on the planet.


That's right, it'll reduce terrorism. It's actually CAUSED more terrorism.this is true the last suicide bombing in iraq before 2003 was in the 14th century...

mikalov can you tell me why you support Bush?



this is true the last suicide bombing in iraq before 2003 was in the 14th century...

Coool :P a suicide bombing in the 14th century :P dint know they had bombs then :P

[Mickalov]

Well after letting this post go for a while getting everybodys responces, none of you have changed my oppinion about Bush or the war because none of you have gave any factual supports to your arguments. And to awnser all of your questions. I support the war in Iraq because I belive that removing Saddam from power was justification for the war 10 times over. That is my personal oppinion. The way that we went to war may have been wrong, by lies or what not, but I do belive that it is justified. Again that is a personal oppinion, so dont flame me for it. I also belive that attacking Bush relentlessly is the wrong thing to do, he is the figure head for the entire cabinet and administration - so why blame him? Congress had to vote to go to war he didn't do it singlehandedly. He also was adressing the american public with reports he got from the CIA,NSA and countless other organizations about WMD's in Iraq. The man was doing his job, and he sticks by what he says to this day and thats why I respect him. If any of you can give your own oppinion and then support it by FACTS and give me sources for thoes facts then my oppinion might be swayed otherwise.

I support communism as a economic system, I think in this day and age it would work the best. What would work even better is a dream system of a hybrid of Economic systems and political systems, but that will never happen. So I'm not joking when I say I support Bush, I dont support some American systems, but I think we made the right decision.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 10:27 PM
I support communism and socialsim - but I do support Bush and I do support the war in Iraq. I'm not going to say why at the moment, but I am curious to why "the left" absolutly hate the guy? Is it just because he isn't a leftest democrat? Or what are your reasons?
wow someone's mastered doublethink, the way of holding two contradictory opinions in your head at one time!

[Livetrueordie]

yeah um you can't support bush and support communism at the same time. Bush is politcally Right wing and Conservative, and economically liberal. while communism is just the opposite.
its as if you said you hate Fascism but support Hitler, it just doesn't make the best of sense
and maybe i don't support that he is against Gay Marriage, he is Pro-"life", and has an imperialist agenda trying to gain global hegemony and promoting terrorism.

In your post you talk about how he sticks to what he believes in or has strong integrity, but yet you also say the cabinet make decisions, so when he realised things were goin wrong and he had such strong integrity wouldn't he make something of this after all he is the lead of his cabinet.


Congress had to vote to go to war he didn't do it singlehandedly
yeah i don't think anyone here has said that they didn't blame congress as well, your putting words in our mouths.

The man was doing his job the president's job is not global police, check an encyclopedia for these facts

If any of you can give your own opinion and then support it by FACTS and give me sources for thoes facts then my oppinion might be swayed otherwisewell had you given FACTS yourself maybe this request wouldn't be so hypocritical.

What would work even better is a dream system of a hybrid of Economic systems and political systems, but that will never happen
this troubles me. you say it'd work better but you don't support it, and that leads me to question your integrity

[Livetrueordie]

Coool tongue.gif a suicide bombing in the 14th century tongue.gif dint know they had bombs then tongue.gif gunpowder has been around since the 11th century. first started in china then korea then rather quickly to the middle-east. ever heard of a petard?

[Latifa]

I support the war in Iraq because I belive that removing Saddam from power was justification for the war 10 times over.

Yes, Bush got Saddam running away with his tail between his legs.

But, what did he leave in his wake? Chaos, riots, people dieing in the streets. In a while Iraq will "democratically elect" a president. The number one candidate? A cleric. Who is quite possibly completely insane. Some job Bush did.


The man was doing his job, and he sticks by what he says to this day and thats why I respect him.

He is president of the USA, not the supreme despot. Also he has double-backed on policy numerous times, he even used to support gay marridge until he realised he was missing his demographics.


What would work even better is a dream system of a hybrid of Economic systems and political systems, but that will never happen.

wtf?

<_<

[Mickalov]

So what you guys are telling me is I can&#39;t support the war - and some of the decisions Bush makes, yet still support Communism? That makes no sence to me. And the point of this post was to get a complete view of everyones oppinoins, not to sway anybody so I wasn&#39;t being hypocritical in any way, I was just saying had you provided facts behind your tangents then I may have changed my oppinion on the man. I don&#39;t neccicarily support the american system. And to explain my comment about a hybrid economic/political, I was talking about a system that takes the benifits from many systems, Communism,Capitalism, and most of the other political/economic systems and form one kind of Economic/Political system which would probably be the best of all worlds. This I would whole heartidly support, I just made the comment that it would never happen due to the fact that I don&#39;t think there is any more land that would allow somone to create a new country. The Presidents job is not to be world police, I agree with that. But according to the world, America is the "good-will ambasador" of the world. America leads the world in releif efforts etc. And also peace keeper. I guess a way to look at it would be, is it a police mans only job to walk around and save cats out of trees? And can you guys show me somewhere where he said he does not support gay marrage? And thats where HE said, not where somebody else said that he doesn&#39;t.

[steve-o]

Are you kidding?
Why I hate Bush is because he is a man with the knowledge of a two-year-old child, who has never done anything to achieve peace, even though he is pretending to. His war in Iraq is no war against terrorism, but a war against humankind&#33; Everyday all the people in Iraq suffer, just for his greed for oil.
Sure, Saddam had to be gone, but there would have been other ways than war...
He is, in fact, a racist, who doesn´t care about anyone than the white protestant proletarians. Thousands of kids suffer hunger and violation, reasoned by his politics. His social program is a joke&#33; Plus he is a liar. How many promises he gave before being elected has he kept? Just ask yourself... Further, Bush is a thief... He is living by oil money, which means blood money. He doesn´t care about hundreds of children getting killed for his greed in the orient. He is stealing their freedom and lives&#33; Bush is a killer&#33; How many unguilty people have died during his last two wars? How many soldiers has he sent into death? From how many children has he taken away the fathers?
And the worst thing of all is that most people voted against him, but still he is president...
How much does he work and what does he achieve for the people in his own country?... and remember, I don´t talk about the burgeois...
He is trying to police the globe but is not able to solve the problems in the US&#33;
Is he respecting the freedom of speech? NO
Is he respecting our human rights? NO
He is trying to control us, the world and everything in it...
Those are just a few points why we hate him...
It is not possible at all to be a socialist, communist, marxist and so on and a bush-sympathiser at once. He is fighting against our opinions...
DROPPING BOMBS ON CHILDREN IS NO WAY TO ACHIEVE PEACE&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

[Livetrueordie]

can you guys show me somewhere where he said he does not support gay marrage?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20040224-2.html (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040224-2.html)
----"And the preservation of marriage rises to this level of national importance. The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honoring -- honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith"

http://www.nytimes.com/top/news/washington...ine=nyt-per-pol (http://www.nytimes.com/top/news/washington/campaign2004/candidates/georgewbush/?inline=nyt-per-pol)
---"Opposes gay marriage"

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/30/bush.gay.marriage/
---"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think we ought to codify that one way or another," Bush told reporters at a White House news conference.

check any news station ANYWHERE

[Mickalov]

Finally, somone who provided some facts. Thanks Livetrueordie. That made me change my oppinion a bit, but the rest of you with your mindless blatherings do nothing. If you want to get something done put some facts behind your arguments and more people will listen to you.

[Latifa]

Yeah the Bush supporting gay marriage was in this book I read, the title has something to do with Bush&#39;s numerous lies. Exactly why NOBODY should trust him, he&#39;s a liar.

[LSD]

So what you guys are telling me is I can&#39;t support the war - and some of the decisions Bush makes, yet still support Communism?

Yes ...but that pretty much goes without saying.

It&#39;s like asking if you can support Mussilini and still be a democrat. NO&#33;&#33;&#33;

Bush has a certain ideology. That ideology informs his beliefs and his policies. That ideology happens to be diametrically opposed to communism. He favours liberalizing the free market while imposing social laws based on religious mores. Communism opposes the free market and opposes religion&#33;

If you support Bush, you support Bush&#39;s ideas; those ideas are fundamentally incongruous with the core tennants of communism. You psychologically cannot adhere to two mutually contradictory conceptual paradigms.

If you are a communist, you oppose neoliberal market reform, ergo you oppose Bush&#39;s entire economic plan, ergo you oppose Bush.

If you believe in Bush, you believe in at least part of his economic plan, ergo you support capitalism in some form, ergo you oppose the abolishment of capitalism, ergo you oppose communism.

Those two conditions (being communist / supporting Bush) are mutually exclusive. The cannot both be true.

In fact, the only way that you could be telling the truth in your post is if you are mistaken about the nature of Bush&#39;s ideology or the nature of communism or both. If it&#39;s the latter, you&#39;ve come to the right place; if it&#39;s the former, I would advise that you do some quick research on the subject.

Either way, the sooner you clarify your politics, the better for your political education. It&#39;s always good to know where you stand and right now you&#39;re as lost as it gets.

[youngmarxist]

Originally posted by Jaded [email protected] 23 2005, 10:26 AM


What was that other claim of his? That&#39;s right, it&#39;ll reduce terrorism. It&#39;s actually CAUSED more terrorism. The London Bombings, Madrid bombings, god knows what else&#39;ll be next. They say there&#39;s no link, but everyone knows that there is. I&#39;d like to know why exactly the troops remain in Iraq and how many more innocent people have to be killed before Bush realizes the harm he is doing. Ask Cindy Sheehan about that one.


The London (twice), Madrid, Bali (twice) and other atrocities were NOT caused by Bush. They were caused by Islamofascists who think that killing the innocent is the best way to advance their cause. They planned the attacks, they planted the bombs, they have the blood of the victims on their hands. NOT Bush.

The troops remain in Iraq because the democratically elected government of Iraq wants them to remain, to fight Baathists and Al-Quaedists.

[youngmarxist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 03:36 PM
I am against bush like almost all of the people on this site however I wish alot of you would provide this guy with solid reasons without resorting to name calling or blunt statements such as "i hate bush cause he&#39;s an ass" this just proves your own intelliectual immaturity.

If this werent bad enough instead of directing your anger at bush you direct it at the guy himself Mickalov who is asking why he should oppose bush how can you expect to educate people when you call them "an idiot."

The more i explore this site the more i am becoming increasingly disillusioned. The fanatical hatred of anyone who opposes your systems of belief is quite frankly disgusting.
Wasted7, struggling against incorrect ideas is a very important part of being a revolutionary. I have just joined this site today and expect to be attacked for my ideas. I agree with Mickalov on the Iraq war, at least, so I am ready for some insults.

I agree that indulging in personal attacks is a mindless thing to do. I encourage you to unite with those of us who believe in testing and struggling with ideas to find out the correct way to think.

I am sure I will disagree with you many times (I would never use Che as an avatar) but I would appreciate the chance to discuss your ideas with you.

[youngmarxist]

Bush has a certain ideology. That ideology informs his beliefs and his policies. That ideology happens to be diametrically opposed to communism. He favours liberalizing the free market while imposing social laws based on religious mores. Communism opposes the free market and opposes religion&#33;


Bush&#39;s ideology is called capitalism. Capitalism is the precursor to socialism. If capitalism had not destroyed the old fuedal systems - if the Northern capitalists in the US civil war had not defeated the Southern slavers - then we would be fighting against feudalism. By destroying feudalism, capitalism &#39;digs its own grave&#39;.

However, the capitalist revolution is not yet over. In Iraq, a vicious military dictator brutalised the Iraqi people for 30 years with the help of the American ruling class. But then Bush came along, and swept away the fascist dictator. This is called extending the capitalist revolution. Until we have a completely successful capitalist revolution, we will not have a socialist revolution.

So despite the fact that Bush has many reactionary positions on issues like gay marriage, it IS revolutionary to support his actions in Iraq.

Mickalov, I suggest you study some of Marx&#39;s theory about how history moves forward. You don&#39;t have to swallow it whole, but you might find it useful - it may well help you understand why capitalism is progressive when it is smashing fuedalism, and why it is reactionary (the opposite of progressive) when it is holding back socialism (IMAO). The Communist Manifesto at Marxists.org (http://www.marxists.org) is a good place to start


If you support Bush, you support Bush&#39;s ideas; those ideas are fundamentally incongruous with the core tennants of communism. You psychologically cannot adhere to two mutually contradictory conceptual paradigms....Those two conditions (being communist / supporting Bush) are mutually exclusive. The cannot both be true.

Wrong. Read Mao&#39;s On Contradiction. The world exists because of opposites. It is perfectly possible to support Bush in Iraq because that is the right thing to do, and to oppose his attempts to discriminate against gays, becuase that is a bad thing.


Either way, the sooner you clarify your politics, the better for your political education. It&#39;s always good to know where you stand and right now you&#39;re as lost as it gets.

You are not lost, ignore this patronising assertion. You are on the right track. It is correct to support the Iraqi people and wrong to oppose, by any means, their struggle for democracy against fascists and terrorists. If being revolutionary does not mean struggling against brutal military dictators, what does it mean exactly?

[Intifada]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 05:11 PM
The London (twice), Madrid, Bali (twice) and other atrocities were NOT caused by Bush. They were caused by Islamofascists who think that killing the innocent is the best way to advance their cause. They planned the attacks, they planted the bombs, they have the blood of the victims on their hands. NOT Bush.

The troops remain in Iraq because the democratically elected government of Iraq wants them to remain, to fight Baathists and Al-Quaedists.
That the actions of Bush and Blair in Iraq have radicalised the Muslim world is undeniable. When the West goes around invading countries and occupying them with bombs and other forms of terror, the West must be prepared to face the backlash that will come from those they have angered.

Killing innocent people, and occupying whole nations, is not the way to "fight terror."

The other points you have raised have been addressed by me in the "Iraq War - Unjust" thread.

[youngmarxist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 05:11 PM
The London (twice), Madrid, Bali (twice) and other atrocities were NOT caused by Bush. They were caused by Islamofascists who think that killing the innocent is the best way to advance their cause. They planned the attacks, they planted the bombs, they have the blood of the victims on their hands. NOT Bush.

The troops remain in Iraq because the democratically elected government of Iraq wants them to remain, to fight Baathists and Al-Quaedists.
That the actions of Bush and Blair in Iraq have radicalised the Muslim world is undeniable. When the West goes around invading countries and occupying them with bombs and other forms of terror, the West must be prepared to face the backlash that will come from those they have angered.

Killing innocent people, and occupying whole nations, is not the way to "fight terror."

By your logic, the US is justified in attacking any country that harbours terrorists, because the actions of al-Quaeda in New York City and Bali (BEFORE the invasion of Iraq) have radicalised the Western world. Why is it only the USA that has to indulge in morality? Why will you make any excuses for terrorism but hold the USA to the highest standards? It is NOT revolutionary to support terrorists, or make excuses for their crimes, and it never will be.

The West has liberated millions of people who were living under religious fascism in Afghanistan, and millions more who were living under military fascisim in Iraq. The terrorists must also be prepared to face the backlash that will come from those they have angered. Like the families of all the working class people killed in Bali, Madrid, London, New York, Baghdad, Washington, Pennsylvania. Or don&#39;t they matter?


The other points you have raised have been addressed by me in the "Iraq War - Unjust" thread.

I have replied in great detail, explaining why I think you are wrong. And your patronising use of &#39;misguided&#39; would be quite rude and intimidating if I didn&#39;t have a thick skin. Do you always indulge in personal attacks on those with different ideas?

[FleasTheLemur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 05:31 PM
Wasted7,

Well said, i totally agree.

Some of you may hate Bush with a passion but you must have solid reasons.

If we resort to what has been called childish namecalling then we are just as bad as the capitalist media that have brainwashed the public into hating communists and leftists. Those who love freedom are seen as the enemy through irrational fear without reason.

We must not return them that favour by alienating ourselves even more whilst degrading educated arguments to the level that capitalists argue.

Let us embrace this chance to form a solid reason why to oppose Bush. You may think "this is easy" or "baby stuff" but is it? Taxes and Iraq are regrettable policies but they are not Bushes sole choice alone. The influence of his party and his supporters also bears weight. We must oppose the Bush administration with efficiency and solidarity.

Do chara,

Slim. Sil Anmachadhra.
Clann Boru
Quoted for Truth.

[Intifada]

By your logic, the US is justified in attacking any country that harbours terrorists, because the actions of al-Quaeda in New York City and Bali (BEFORE the invasion of Iraq) have radicalised the Western world.

The US was killing Iraqis before 9/11 2001.

Do not forget the hundreds of thousands that were killed by the sanctions imposed by the US and UK, most of whom were Iraqi children who didn&#39;t even know why they were being attacked.

That is a mass grave.

9/11 2001, although an atrocity that I condemn greatly, was a pinprick compared to US actions in Iraq. Moreover, the murder of 3000 or so innocent Westerners is not a justification for the murder of tens of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans, whose country has been occupied.


Why is it only the USA that has to indulge in morality?

So it is alright for the US to behave in a disgusting fashion that defies human rights?


Why will you make any excuses for terrorism but hold the USA to the highest standards?

No excuses were being made, just understanding of the causes of terror.

The invasion of Iraq has served as a recruiting sergeant for the likes of bin Laden and Zawahiri.


It is NOT revolutionary to support terrorists, or make excuses for their crimes, and it never will be.


Nobody has supported terrorist actions, but yourself.

You supported the invasion of Iraq, the biggest act of terror this world has seen in the years since 9/11 2001.


The West has liberated millions of people who were living under religious fascism in Afghanistan, and millions more who were living under military fascisim in Iraq.

Oh yes.

Afghanistan, the place where Karzai, a US puppet who has had links with Washington through the CIA and Unocal, a huge US oil group which had supported the Taliban movement and sought to construct a pipeline to transport oil and gas from the Islamic republics of Central Asia to Pakistan via Afghanistan.

Read "The New Great Game: Blood and Oil in Central Asia" by Lutz Kleveman.

Even though Western politicians and media claim that Afghanistan is now officially democratic, following the "elections" in October of last year, the truth is that the whole event was a scandalous fiasco, filled with intimidation and corruption. Afghans in the south-east province of Khost, for example, were warned to "vote for US-backed Hamed Karzai or your home will be burned to the ground."

Moreover, people were permitted to vote more than once, and they did so after hearing that political parties would pay up to &#036;150 for a registration card, a huge sum of money in a country where many live on &#036;2 a day.

When asked about plurality voting at a conference attended also by Rumsfeld, Karzai replied: "If Afghans have two registration cards and if they would like to vote twice-well, welcome&#33;"

The elections were simply a sham, which in the run up to the Presidential election in America, aimed at fooling the US public into believing that Bush had succeeded in liberating the country.

Any person with common sense would see that.


The terrorists must also be prepared to face the backlash that will come from those they have angered. Like the families of all the working class people killed in Bali, Madrid, London, New York, Baghdad, Washington, Pennsylvania. Or don&#39;t they matter?

Look at yourself&#33;

You are condoning the murder of more innocent people in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, because you believe that this will put an end to terror.

The lives cut short, on September the 11th 2001, have been used as a justification by the likes of Bush and Blair to wage costly wars on ordinary people who had nothing to do with the attacks. Innocents are still the victims.

It is crucial for the leaders of the West to understand why some people resort to terrorism.

While arguing that "justice" and "democracy" is the way forward for the Arab and Muslim world, President Bush funds and supports brutal regimes and dictators such as Sharon&#39;s Israel, which is still enforcing a 38 year old illegal occupation of Palestinian land, and Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan, who literally boils any political enemies alive. This two-faced policy reveals the true nature of the American Government, and will only "blowback" at them, in the future.

Through showing more "strength", or aggression, the West will only create more hard-line Islamic extremists. It will never end the circle of violence. The way in which America has pursued "terrorists" has been wholly counterproductive in quashing "terrorism." This can be proven by events such as Bali and the Madrid bombings, where guiltless civilians were the victims, just like in Iraq and Afghanistan.

By hunting down "terrorists" in the same ruthless and fanatical manner that they act in, America can never bring "democracy", "freedom" or "peace" to the Arab world. Such actions will only breed more hatred and violence, not peace.


And your patronising use of &#39;misguided&#39; would be quite rude and intimidating if I didn&#39;t have a thick skin. Do you always indulge in personal attacks on those with different ideas?

No.

I just believe that you are a very confused person.

[youngmarxist]

By your logic, the US is justified in attacking any country that harbours terrorists, because the actions of al-Quaeda in New York City and Bali (BEFORE the invasion of Iraq) have radicalised the Western world.
The US was killing Iraqis before 9/11 2001.

Do not forget the hundreds of thousands that were killed by the sanctions imposed by the US and UK, most of whom were Iraqi children who didn&#39;t even know why they were being attacked.

That is a mass grave.

9/11 2001, although an atrocity that I condemn greatly, was a pinprick compared to US actions in Iraq. Moreover, the murder of 3000 or so innocent Westerners is not a justification for the murder of tens of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans, whose country has been occupied.
The sanctions were evil and never would have happened if President George HW Bush had pushed through to Baghdad in 1991. By the way, were you one of the anti-war protesters who were saying &#39;But we have to give the sanctions time to work" in 1990/1? To my shame, I was. And I was wrong.

9/11 was an atrocity, BUT NOTHING. Don&#39;t give me this "We all condemn terrorism but...." line. Either the terrorists are criminals or they are not. If they are criminals they must be captured or killed.

As far as the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan goes, do you seriously contend that life is worse there now than before the invasions?

I am worried about the point that if you are going to engage in a war of liberation, then you need to demonstrate some consent from some sort of representative body.

But in, say, WWII, would you say that French people who died in Allied bombing raids were &#39;murdered&#39;?

It was wrong and foolish of Bush and Blair to attack Iraq without clearly trying to gain such consent. But I do believe that such a body would have given permission to remove Sadaam Hussein. I am going to make an effort to talk online to as many Kurds and Iraqis as I can to try and judge their views.



Why is it only the USA that has to indulge in morality?
So it is alright for the US to behave in a disgusting fashion that defies human rights?

No, it is not alright. Its just that so-called leftists are very quick to condemn the USA when it does the wrong thing, but very slow to condemn the enemies of the USA.



Why will you make any excuses for terrorism but hold the USA to the highest standards?
No excuses were being made, just understanding of the causes of terror.

No, you were making excuses. Any argument that blames Bush and Blair for terorist bombs takes the responsibility away from the criminals who planted those bombs. That gives them an excuse. Terrorism is wrong, no matter how much poverty is in the world. This is not legitimate people&#39;s resistance to tyranny, this is not people&#39;s revolution, this is terror. A revolutionary should defend the working class who travels on the London underground or who work in the FDNY, not make excuses for their murderers.



It is NOT revolutionary to support terrorists, or make excuses for their crimes, and it never will be.
Nobody has supported terrorist actions, but yourself.

You supported the invasion of Iraq, the biggest act of terror this world has seen in the years since 9/11 2001.
Why is there now a free government in Iraq then? Invading Iraq was an act of liberation and hope. Millions of people are free. Hundreds of thousands are dead and we must never forget them. But when it comes down to a choice, who should run Iraq? Sadaam, al-Quaedists, or democrats?



The West has liberated millions of people who were living under religious fascism in Afghanistan, and millions more who were living under military fascisim in Iraq.

Oh yes.

Afghanistan, the place where Karzai, a US puppet who has had links with Washington through the CIA and Unocal, a huge US oil group which had supported the Taliban movement and sought to construct a pipeline to transport oil and gas from the Islamic republics of Central Asia to Pakistan via Afghanistan.

Read "The New Great Game: Blood and Oil in Central Asia" by Lutz Kleveman.

Even though Western politicians and media claim that Afghanistan is now officially democratic, following the "elections" in October of last year, the truth is that the whole event was a scandalous fiasco, filled with intimidation and corruption. Afghans in the south-east province of Khost, for example, were warned to "vote for US-backed Hamed Karzai or your home will be burned to the ground."

Moreover, people were permitted to vote more than once, and they did so after hearing that political parties would pay up to &#036;150 for a registration card, a huge sum of money in a country where many live on &#036;2 a day.

When asked about plurality voting at a conference attended also by Rumsfeld, Karzai replied: "If Afghans have two registration cards and if they would like to vote twice-well, welcome&#33;"

The elections were simply a sham, which in the run up to the Presidential election in America, aimed at fooling the US public into believing that Bush had succeeded in liberating the country.

Any person with common sense would see that.

If what you say is true, then the correct response is for leftists to assist the Afghan people in their further struggle for liberation. Karzai will be easier to remove than the Taliban.

Since my study of Marxism has shown me the very basic dialectical point that &#39;Things turn into their opposites&#39; I have no trouble believing that what was a progressive movement to overthrow a fascist clerical dictatorship has become corrupted. I also know that suicide bombs set off by those fascists are not the way to bring further liberation to Iraq.

You have not, by the way, provided any references for your assertions. Links or page numbers would be nice.

How many people are alleged to have voted more than once in the Afghan elections? How did they get around the common practice of dipping people&#39;s fingers in purple dye to show that they have already voted?

Who reported the alleged threat to villagers? Has the threat been substantiated?

What specific actions of Karzai lead you to allege that he is a puppet of the USA and that he is not acting in the best interests of Afghanis?

Your comment that "anyone with common sense can see that" is an illegitimate debating tactic. It implies that anyone who disagrees with you does not have common sense. This is intellectually dishonest



The terrorists must also be prepared to face the backlash that will come from those they have angered. Like the families of all the working class people killed in Bali, Madrid, London, New York, Baghdad, Washington, Pennsylvania. Or don&#39;t they matter?

Look at yourself&#33;
You are condoning the murder of more innocent people in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, because you believe that this will put an end to terror.

The lives cut short, on September the 11th 2001, have been used as a justification by the likes of Bush and Blair to wage costly wars on ordinary people who had nothing to do with the attacks. Innocents are still the victims.

It is crucial for the leaders of the West to understand why some people resort to terrorism.

I am not condoning murder. Any Coalition soldier who breaks the rules of war should be tried and punished without mercy.

I am condoning the war, along with the tens or possibly hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths it caused. I think the Iraqi and Afghani people will view those deaths as part of the price of getting rid of dictatorships.

The Taliban were hosts to al-Quaeda. That makes them accessories to mass murder. Unlike the Americans, al-Quaeda DELIBERATELY targeted civilians as a matter of policy. There are innocent victims of the American war, and I think those deaths are a price worth paying. If you can show me that a majority of Iraqis disagree with me, please do.


While arguing that "justice" and "democracy" is the way forward for the Arab and Muslim world, President Bush funds and supports brutal regimes and dictators such as Sharon&#39;s Israel, which is still enforcing a 38 year old illegal occupation of Palestinian land, and Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan, who literally boils any political enemies alive. This two-faced policy reveals the true nature of the American Government, and will only "blowback" at them, in the future.

Why do you think that evil man Sharon is withdrawing from the West Bank? Bush is the first President EVER to speak in support of a Palestinian state. The US is currently putting more pressure on Israel to stop its foul policies than anyone ever has before.

If the USA is indeed supporting Karimov, then they are wrong, and the policy should be denounced, exposed as evil and defeated.

You are correct to say that the American government is &#39;two-faced&#39;. There are many factions within a ruling class, with different viewpoints. So contradictory policies happen. We should denounce the wrong and SUPPORT the correct.



Through showing more "strength", or aggression, the West will only create more hard-line Islamic extremists. It will never end the circle of violence. The way in which America has pursued "terrorists" has been wholly counterproductive in quashing "terrorism." This can be proven by events such as Bali and the Madrid bombings, where guiltless civilians were the victims, just like in Iraq and Afghanistan.

By hunting down "terrorists" in the same ruthless and fanatical manner that they act in, America can never bring "democracy", "freedom" or "peace" to the Arab world. Such actions will only breed more hatred and violence, not peace.

Perhaps you would explain how you would defeat terrorist fascists who would string up every single one of us here if they had the chance? What is your plan, since you hate the USA&#39;s actions so much?



And your patronising use of &#39;misguided&#39; would be quite rude and intimidating if I didn&#39;t have a thick skin. Do you always indulge in personal attacks on those with different ideas?
No.

I just believe that you are a very confused person.

And I believe that attitudes like yours are a betrayal of the Iraqi, Kurdish and Afghani people.

I am not confused, I am very clear in what I believe. Its just that you don&#39;t agree with me.

[Intifada]

The sanctions were evil and never would have happened if President George HW Bush had pushed through to Baghdad in 1991.

To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day hero... assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un-winnable urban guerilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability.

-- George Bush Sr (A World Transformed, 1998)

Maybe his son could have taken a hint.


By the way, were you one of the anti-war protesters who were saying &#39;But we have to give the sanctions time to work" in 1990/1? To my shame, I was. And I was wrong.


At that time, I was about three years old.


9/11 was an atrocity, BUT NOTHING. Don&#39;t give me this "We all condemn terrorism but...." line. Either the terrorists are criminals or they are not. If they are criminals they must be captured or killed.


9/11 was absolutely nothing compared to the US actions in Iraq since 1990. At least half a million innocent children were murdered. Murder is murder, whether it&#39;s committed by hijackers or by men in suits in the West.

Killing terrorists is not going to solve anything. The people who we are supposedly fighting are prepare to die, and there are plenty more who are willing to do the same, especially after seeing how their brothers and sisters are being killed and humiliated in places like Iraq.


As far as the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan goes, do you seriously contend that life is worse there now than before the invasions?


That is debatable.

I do not believe, however, that the Afghan people have been "freed", contrary to what you seem to believe.


But in, say, WWII, would you say that French people who died in Allied bombing raids were &#39;murdered&#39;?


That is a totally different historical event.

In fact, it could be argued that people like Moqtada al Sadr are just like the French resistance.


I am going to make an effort to talk online to as many Kurds and Iraqis as I can to try and judge their views.


I have talked to quite a lot, through anti-war protests and meetings. One woman, a Kurdish novelist, Haifa Zangana (she has had a most interesting life), who was imprisoned by Saddam in Abu Ghraib and tortured, described how she witnessed Iraqi women and children looking for food out of the trashcans.


No, it is not alright. Its just that so-called leftists are very quick to condemn the USA when it does the wrong thing, but very slow to condemn the enemies of the USA.

Which enemies of the USA?

Al Qaeda?

Be specific, so I can respond in a proper fashion.


No, you were making excuses.

No I was not.

I simply stated that if the US and it&#39;s allies continue to bomb innocent people, just like the terrorists they claim to fight, they will only succeed in creating more terrorists willing to sacrifice their lives in order to gain revenge, as they see it.

That shouldn&#39;t be hard to comprehend.

Is their bombing worse than ours? (http://electroniciraq.net/news/2087.shtml)

Interpreting the attack on London (http://electroniciraq.net/news/2052.shtml)

The above articles explain my feelings very well.


Terrorism is wrong, no matter how much poverty is in the world.

Nobody mentioned poverty.


A revolutionary should defend the working class who travels on the London underground or who work in the FDNY, not make excuses for their murderers.


Our job is to understand the cause of terrorism, otherwise we cannot effectively combat it.

Mate, my cousin was close to being killed in the 7/7 bombings. Do you think I was not angry at those who committed such a heinous crime? Of course I am.

I, however, realise that Bush and Blair&#39;s actions in Iraq have only added fuel to the fire of hatred burning amongst many Muslims who see their people being killed and subjugated by Western imperialists.


Why is there now a free government in Iraq then?

There is no freedom or democracy in Iraq.

I have addressed this in the other thread.


But when it comes down to a choice, who should run Iraq?

Iraqis.

At the moment, the US is ruling Iraq.


You have not, by the way, provided any references for your assertions. Links or page numbers would be nice.


The info I got was from ac article I wrote about the "War on Terror."

Anyway, I haven&#39;t got much time so here is one source:

Afghan Election Set to Be Fiasco (http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/1947.cfm)


What specific actions of Karzai lead you to allege that he is a puppet of the USA and that he is not acting in the best interests of Afghanis?

Read this (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD201A.html)


Your comment that "anyone with common sense can see that" is an illegitimate debating tactic. It implies that anyone who disagrees with you does not have common sense. This is intellectually dishonest

Forget semantics.


I am not condoning murder. Any Coalition soldier who breaks the rules of war should be tried and punished without mercy.


Yes you are.

By supporting the war, you support the killing of innocent people.


I am condoning the war, along with the tens or possibly hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths it caused. I think the Iraqi and Afghani people will view those deaths as part of the price of getting rid of dictatorships.


I would love to see you going to Basrah or Fallujah, and tell the people of Iraq that.

You would be murdered in the same way as those Blackwater contracters.

You are just as bad as Madeline Albright.


The Taliban were hosts to al-Quaeda. That makes them accessories to mass murder.

The Taliban offered to extradite bin Laden to a neutral country, such as Saudi Arabia. The US rejected this offer and invaded anyway.


Unlike the Americans, al-Quaeda DELIBERATELY targeted civilians as a matter of policy. There are innocent victims of the American war, and I think those deaths are a price worth paying.

The US deliberately and willingly damaged water supplies during sanctions, resulting in the deaths of many innocent people, who simply needed to drink and keep clean.

The US also uses DU-tipped arms, which have resulted in the deaths of many innocent children, and unborn babies, whilst causing the Cancer rates to rocket.

The US also uses cluster bombs against the civilian population.

To cut a long story short, the US does murder civilians, intentionally and willingly. Just ask Iraq war veteran, Jimmy Massey.


Why do you think that evil man Sharon is withdrawing from the West Bank?

Haha&#33;

The simple fact is, Gaza will not be free of Israeli occupation. At best, it will be an open-air prison, where the borders, air-space, coastline and necessary resources such as water supplies are controlled by Israel.

Sharon is still the same racist and savage Zionist that he has always been. Though, he isn&#39;t stupid.

Sharon has used the Gaza withdrawal to relieve international pressure on Israel, while diverting attention on the West Bank, and to reach a "peace" settlement with the PA after the death of Yasser Arafat, one that will benefit the Israeli state and undermine the possibility of a viable Palestinian state. The Gaza plan also allows for the indefinite postponement of final status negotiations with the PA, regarding illegal settlements, the borders and East Jerusalem, as outlined under the Oslo Accord and the US-sponsored "Road Map."

Sharon&#39;s most senior adviser - Dov Weisglass - is on record as saying:

The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process, and when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem.

The disengagement plan allows Israel to reach an agreement, for the first time from Washington, to maintain and perpetuate large illegal settlements in the West Bank.

Ariel Sharon did once say:

A lie should be tried in a place where it will attract the attention of the world

The pullout was simply a ruse.


We should denounce the wrong and SUPPORT the correct.


There is no "correct."

The Bush administration uses other leaders, no matter what they do to their own people or how they behave, who will help him gain a strategic advantage in the Central Asian region, as well as the Middle East.


Perhaps you would explain how you would defeat terrorist fascists who would string up every single one of us here if they had the chance? What is your plan, since you hate the USA&#39;s actions so much?


Stop interfering with the Muslim and Arab world, especially when it is in a way that is both hypocritical and unjust. Stop the support of murderers like Sharon and dictators such as Mubarak.

That would be a start.


And I believe that attitudes like yours are a betrayal of the Iraqi, Kurdish and Afghani people.


That is your subjective opinion.

[Comrade Corinna]

lol "Why do you hate Bush"

I think the question is "Why would you NOT hate Bush"

[fukuoka_yakuza]

really, why would you ask why people hate bush on this board, of all places? the guy walks by and birds break their left wing. as for the war, saddam may have been a corrupt dictator, but thats not why bush attacked him. it was more like, "i dont like you and you have oil, lets invade you." there werent missiles, and the us still hunted him down and jailed him for life. what laws did he break, just out of curiosity?