Ciao!

My brother just gave me that DVD for my birthday. It's shocking to see how he lived, the front he put on to the international media, and his rampant megalomania. The comparison they drew between all the building he's done (his 'legacy') and the egyptian pharros was somewhat disturbing.

Someone needs to do a film on Bush like this, to show how lavishly he lives while so many poor in his country lanquish.

I can appreciate that. But. Bush isn't living nearly as lavishly as Hussein did, and he's not stealing international aid to do it. He's using his own money. I think the contrast between the two is so stark, only a fool would think they resembled each other.

Hi, Miquel, I don't know much about Bush Junior's personal life and I would be surprised if you did. What's certain is that it's a stretch to suggest that Bush "uses his own money." You mean the money garnered from exploiting the poor of this world and stolen from the US taxpayer?

Bush is hypocrite, along with his cronies, almost beyond imagination. You only have to look at his record. He's a deserter from the Vietnam War and now he has the audacity to send teenagers to slaughter and be slaughtered while sitting at home in Washington DC laughing and slapping his cronies on the back; fat asses stuffed full of cordon blue and caviar.

He's deluded. He doesn't need power, he needs serious help. I'm just some bloke from New Zealand. Trying to mind his own business. Your government's actions have forced me to take a closer look at this world and what I've learnt about the history of your government and it's political and military interventions throughout the world has turned my blood cold.

If American's are not going to stop their government then others are going to have to and it won't be pretty.

I may be jumping to conclusions calling it "your government." I apoligise if this is incorrect.

While you are certainly entitled to your own opinion, I'd suggest taking a bit more care about your rhetoric. And your assumptions. You assume that Bush is rich by "exploiting the poor of the world", which isn't a statement of fact (something that can be falsified), but rather an ideological statement (something that's true only depending on your ideological premises, which are not statements of fact).

Also, you seem to suggest that Bush is home "slapping his cronies on the back." This is a statement of fact that can be veryfied, though you state it as if it were unequivocably true (something I've seen no evidence to suggest). If you know this to be true, please share your evidence. I seriously doubt Bush (or any leader, Putin, Chirac, etc.) enjoys making the tough (and often unpopular/controversial) decisions that come w/ statesmanship.

Next, you claim Bush is a Vietnam war deserter. This is a statement of fact that is known to be untrue. Bush served in the Air National Guard, much like Clinton served in the Army National Guard (well, Clinton actually didn't serve, but that's a complex issue on its own). Please be careful about making blatantly false accusations.

I'm glad you're taking a close look at my government's actions (and yes, like it or not, this is MY government since I'm a US citizen). But be careful where you get your sources. There's much bias out there (both on the right AND the left) and one must be careful to read as much credible information as possible.

Finally, you argue against my government's actions, but never seem to specify what actions you mean. We've certainly done some things you might not like (or myself either), but we've also done some good things as well. No country's perfect, and much of our opinions do depend upon our ideological positions.

You mention that someone has to stop our government. I hope you don't mean from promoting things like human rights and democracy. I hope you don't mean from interventions such as in Yugoslavia (after the Europeans refused to help the poor Bosnian Muslims) or our outrage at the UN's refusal to act in Rwanda. I hope you don't mean things like that.

And, lastly, if someone is going to stop the US. Then I certainly hope it's not someone like bin-Laden, who wants to destroy all of Western Civilization in the name of a religiously fanatic crusade bent on anihilating any semblance of democracy or human rights.

Hi Miquel, thanks for the considered response. And thanks for the suggestion regarding rhetoric but I'm happy with it myself. As for my assertions (they're not assumptions), they're well founded. Something tells me you've been sitting in a university learning to take someone's argument apart while at the same time avoiding the central arguments. So while we're throwing around suggestions may I suggest that you drop the narrow language analysis which frequently enables you to miss the point?

For arguments sake let's agree that my "exploiting the poor of the world" comment is an ideological statement. By the same token "He's using his own money" is in much the same vein. Doesn't get us far and I don't expect you'll to agree. The ideology of the US, I imagine, is very much "the truth" as far as you're concerned. This is a very common attitude of those who have been taught to believe in a narrow set of options.

As for Bush's back slapping, you missed the point. The point was to create an image for the reader, not to describe his dining habits. And it is an image only too fitting for a deserter, never having been to war, who exclaims (while sitting at home) "bring em on" when resistance fighters start killing Americans.

You're the first person I've come across that's denied Bush is a deserter. I'd be interested to hear your argument. Maybe you could start with these:
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/document.htm
http://www.awolbush.com/
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/2002/10/25_Deserter.html

The actions of your government that I am against are far too numerous for me to mention so here's a few useful books:

On the Justice of Roosting Chickens: Reflections on the Consequences of U.S. Imperial Arrogance and Criminality by Ward Churchill
http://www.akpress.org/dosearch.php?itemid=4320

Hegemony or Survival by Noam Chomsky
http://www.americanempireproject.com/bookpage.asp?ISBN=0805074007

Regime Unchanged by Milan Rai
A brilliant expose of the lies that propelled the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
http://snipurl.com/3crx

You wrote, "We've certainly done some things you might not like (or myself either), but we've also done some good things as well. No country's perfect, and much of our opinions do depend upon our ideological positions."

I wouldn't be so quick to lump other Americans in with your opinion. I know there are many Americans out there who are waking up to reality. Many people, including myself and many Americans, do not consider the actions of a few elite the actions of your "country." Inaction yes, but even that is largely the result of the actions of a few.

You wrote, "You mention that someone has to stop our government. I hope you don't mean from promoting things like human rights and democracy. I hope you don't mean from interventions such as in Yugoslavia (after the Europeans refused to help the poor Bosnian Muslims) or our outrage at the UN's refusal to act in Rwanda. I hope you don't mean things like that."

The vast majority of political and military intervention by the US government has resulted in the thwarting of democracy and the killing of millions upon millions of people. And trust me, I don't have any better view of the European elite.

You wrote, "... if someone is going to stop the US. Then I certainly hope it's not someone like bin-Laden, who wants to destroy all of Western Civilization in the name of a religiously fanatic crusade bent on anihilating any semblance of democracy or human rights."

That was my point precisely. I hope Americans stop their government, and peacefully. But history does not bode well. The Western peace movement has failed millions since the Vietnam War. However, there's a new movement emerging. A global justice movement which is interested in results. Let's hope there are results and ASAP.

As far as those who afford the popular support needed to carry out terrorist activity are concerned, the message is clear. The days of immunity and self-exemption from the costs and consequences of what's dished out are over. If you want your children to be safe stop killing other people's babies or looking the other way while they die.

Anthony:

I appreciate your candor. But I would request that you do take a moment to step away from the debate and consider what you are doing. You have taken the tact of personally insulting me. Is that useful in your debate? Does that make me more willing to take your position or consider it? Does it make me respect you more or less? And, finally, is it in keeping w/ the moral high ground you're trying to establish for your argument?

Yes, I have taught critical logic at the university level. But this is not meant to take away from "the point" as you put it. I'm no Sophist (I detest them). Rather, the use of critical logic is meant to help us to make arguments based on truth, not emotional claims or mere assertions.

I'd also remind you that your taking a stereotypical view of Americans is not progressive. It's simple and ugly prejudice (the same kind used against indigenous peoples, the poor, African-Americans, homosexuals, etc.). It's certainly not a progressive (or even leftist!) attitude.

Now, to answer your claims. Yes, I've heard the arguments that Bush was a Vietnam deserter. These claims are clearly false. Just because you read them on a website doesn't make them true. I'd also argue that Clinton wasn't technically a Vietnam deserter either, contrary to any claims made by extreme right-wingers. Of course, whether Bush is a deserter isn't exactly relevant (although perhaps to his character, I'll grant that). But the assertion is false.

I realize that you meant the image of Bush slapping his back as a rhetorical device. But I think it was in poor taste and missed a much better opportunity. There is a strong case to be made for your position. I will readily grant that. But it can't be made that way. Certainly not if you want to convince the majority to your position. You must use reason, not raw emotional rhetoric, which just turns people off.

Now I agree that we can engage in a debate about capitalism and poverty. This is, of course, a complex issue that engages both ideology AND facts. And solid arguments can be made for both sides. Why you insist on calling this "my" country's ideology, I can't fathom. Last I checked, New Zealand was also a capitalist country. How much of YOUR wealth came from the exploitation of its indigenous people? Or from the broader British Empire (I believe your country was a part of it much longer than mine)?

Now, You're right that much of our intervention, especially in the past, was meant to thwart democracy. No argument there. But does this condemn us for perpetuity? Should I discount any argument for peace made by a German chancellor precisely because he's German? I think that would be rather racist, wouldn't you? I'd like to think that countries, like people, can learn from their mistakes. And I'd like to think that intelligent people can differentiate between "good" interventions and "bad" ones. There's no need to throw the baby out w/ the bathwater.

You're right. Personal insults are not useful, but then again I'm not completely sure what you're referring to so maybe you're being overly sensitive. It all seemed an appropriate response. I'm overly used to debating with Americans of the Neocon persuasion. I don't debate with them to persuade them. I debate them because I want my voice on the record, for other Americans to see and for history itself to see. Judging from your response I'll admit I didn't snap out of this mode quickly enough.

Let's just say I don't profess to be a good persuader but rather evidence per se of a developing attitude growing amongst the world's population. A growing attitude that Americans need to deal with.

I'm surprised at your suggestion that I stereotyped Americans. I can only imagine this is a response to my comment about learning a narrow set of options. If you want to debate the idea that Americans are generally taught a narrow set of options I'm only too happy to reciprocate (you only need to strike up a discussion with Americans about economic models for cursory evidence of this), but just as insults are counterproductive so too are reactionary claims of stereotyping. I did in fact do the opposite. On one occassion I reminded you not to lump all Americans in with your opinion. I also noted that I do not consider the actions of an elite few the actions of your "country."

You don't offer me anything in the way of rebuttal regarding Bush being a deserter. You only tell me I shouldn't believe it because I read it on a website. You're right, which is why I'm not going to believe you telling me it's "clearly false." There's nothing "clearly false" about it. These websites offer considerable documentary and circumstantial evidence and I've yet to see any credible evidence in rebuttal. I thought you might have some, but clearly not.

You wrote, "I realize that you meant the image of Bush slapping his back as a rhetorical device. But I think it was in poor taste and missed a much better opportunity. There is a strong case to be made for your position. I will readily grant that. But it can't be made that way. Certainly not if you want to convince the majority to your position. You must use reason, not raw emotional rhetoric, which just turns people off."

It depends on the audience, of which I guess I've misjudged.

You wrote, "Why you insist on calling this "my" country's ideology, I can't fathom. Last I checked, New Zealand was also a capitalist country. How much of YOUR wealth came from the exploitation of its indigenous people? Or from the broader British Empire (I believe your country was a part of it much longer than mine)?"

I didn't differentiate the US's ideology from that of any other country. I simply pointed to it. The differentiation I made was to note that US citizens are generally taught to believe that this is the only viable ideology. And believe me, I do not claim to belong to a history of justice. I have many criticisms regarding my own country and for obvious reasons you do not know of these. My focus on the US, which you see for obvious reasons (you're a US citizen), is rooted in the fact that I see myself as the subject of an unjust empire.

You wrote, "Now, You're right that much of our intervention, especially in the past, was meant to thwart democracy. No argument there. But does this condemn us for perpetuity? Should I discount any argument for peace made by a German chancellor precisely because he's German? I think that would be rather racist, wouldn't you? I'd like to think that countries, like people, can learn from their mistakes. And I'd like to think that intelligent people can differentiate between "good" interventions and "bad" ones. There's no need to throw the baby out w/ the bathwater."

I totally agree, but the evidence is that nothing has changed, or in fact that the pace has quickened. If you, for instance, believe that Iraq had anything to do with justice and human rights, other than convenience and propaganda, I implore you to read Regime Unchanged.

Unfortunately, I don't put much stock in Noam Chomsky. I'm not a "neocon" (good lord, I'm a liberal in the stripe of J.S Mill!), but you'll soon discover that Chomsky's not well regarded outside his own personal circle. This goes not only for his political opinions, but also for his methodological rigor (he's not well regarded w/in his own academy as a linguist for having frequently "fudged" much of his data to fit his theories). But that's neither here nor there. Arguments stand on their own strength, not on the personal lives of those who propose them.

Whatever your arguments against neocons (or others) might be, I implore you to take this attitude: Intelligent, honest, good-hearted people may sometimes disagree w/ me. None of us are arbiters of absolute truth, in any sense (I take the slogan of an Iranian dissident blogger to heart: "Nothing is sacred!"). So if you want to argue only for the sake of arguing, then go ahead. But it will not advance your cause. The best way to defeat radicals (right or left) is to stay always calm, poised, polite. This way you come off as the more rational person and show them for what they are, a dogmatist.

I would ask you, before you keep condemning the US tout court, to draw up a list (as short as it might be) of things you LIKE about America, its culture, its people, its politics. Believe me, I'm sure there are things there you might like. It's often good to take some time out to focus on these things. A while ago there was much French-bashing online, and I posted a long list of things I adore about France, even if I dislike some of Chirac's grandstanding. It's a very useful exercise. Try not to demonize your enemies.

Finally, I'd encourage you to read some of my other posts. Get a sense for the kind of person I truly am. Perhaps I was a bit sensitive, but your first comment was really nothing short of a diatribe. It did little to gain any respect for you or your position. First impressions are extremely critical. I'm too frequently disappointed by the recent inability of the left to present calm, persuasive arguments. The anti-war protests in the US were a clear sign of this, it did little more than push much of the majority towards support for the war (there were many studies that showed that protests were correlated w/ increase in support for the war). You need to ask yourself a key question: Is my purpose to change people's minds? Or is it simply to express my opinion? If your purpose is only the latter, then what point does it serve to have any moral/ethical principles?