Bushbasher,

I have very little support for George Bush. I accept that he has been divisive. But he has not been on his own in that respect. The Left has embraced and broken new ground in this divisiveness through their constant virulent attacks on the Bush, Blair and Howard gov’ts.

George Bush may not be a great man, but he is no Ahmedinejhad, Hussein or Jong il. What most disgusts me is people who compare Howard and Bush with dictators and warlords, thereby giving legitimacy to these people.

The ordinary people of the left have fallen under the spell of the far left/anti capitalists who are unsurpassed in their attempts to damage the West. But I never thought I would see the day when the left, which I once belonged to, would support dictators and tyrants over democratically elected leaders.

The anti American feeling in the left is so strong it is blinding all of you to any responsible or realistic analysis of geopolitics amid the war on terror.

George Bush is a poor leader by the standards of the Western liberal democracies. However he is an unimpeachable figure when held up against the dictators and tyrants of the rest of the world.

And yet the left still want to paint him as the American Pol Pot. It would be funny were it not so serious.

Bushbred,

I replied to your ideas about Bismarck and Keynes on the "Give Iran the Bomb??" thread.

I have little time for Bush but I too am tired of people bashing Western leaders and thereby legitimising the real tyrants.
John Howard is not perfect but I would far rather Howard than the Iranian President.
I would also far prefer Howard to Rudd. Rudd is far more dishonest. He knows he cannot and will not remove troops. He knows he cannot and will not choose his team. He knows he cannot and will not meet the climate targets set by the ALP. He knows he cannot and will not be able to reduce union influence on the ALP. He knows he cannot and will not do most of what he is promising. It does not bother him in the least but he is still painting himself as the honest alternative which is about as dishonest as you can get - and this is the way the left operates. Get a media which dare not criticise the left or satirise them and we are in deep trouble.

Some people have complained about the Ahmadinejad's support for the 'destruction of Israel'. They obviously believe Israeli hysteria. The facts would be much closer to:

- Israel has the most powerful military in the region. No one is going to 'wipe [it] off the face of the Earth'
- Israel has nuclear weapons and will 'wipe off the face of the Earth' anyone who attacks it
- Israel is backed by the US. The US will 'wipe off the face of the Earth' anyone who attacks Israel
- Sadaam supported the Palestinians. Sadaam was hanged. Iraq has been 'wiped off the face of the Earth'
- Israel sees Iran as a threat. Unfortunately, Iran will probably be 'wiped off the face of the Earth' at some point. Again, it will be young American who do the dying and American taxpayers who foot the bill

If the Israelis are safer who cares about the consequences, right? 25 million Iraqis living in a country in turmoil. What's another 60 million in turmoil next door. Perhaps then, Israel would be able to advance to the long cherished Euphrates and claim its 'greater Israel'. All in the name of 'regional stability' of course - keeping the stupid Arabs from killing themselves. Would also be a good time to expel Arabs from Israel and the Occupied Territories too. Make sure Israel is racially 'pure'.

If you think this is far fetched then do a google on 'greater isral' and see what you come up with.

The alternative is simple. Just hope and pray the Iranians do get the bomb. Then when the Israelis finally have a real opponent, they'll suddenly become a lot more reasonable and we'll see peace.

bushbred, please don't leave us yet. i enjoy your posts.

Paul L, there's no point in responding to your remarks about the "left". Such generalisations are meaningless, and to talk of "virulent attacks" is contentless. If you make specific complaints about specific attacks by specific people then there is something to discuss.
Further, to associate me with this "left", whatever you mean by that, is rude and groundless.

Communicat, I think you've hit upon an important issue. I just don't see the "bashing" of Western leaders as in any way legitimising the real tyrants. It's simply that our leaders are under more scrutiny because they are our leaders. We get to vote them in or out.

I think there is a further problem with what both Paul L and Communicat say, or rather fail to say. If America is not the "real tyrant", they have nonetheless had a long and proud history of propping up and ignoring tyrants. As we all know, this included Saddam Hussein, but he was far from unique. And still today there is selectivity in the tyrants and the tyranny we focus upon.

dane, if your post is not entirely anti-semitic, it's nonetheless a bloody good try.

coach... do you think before you write these posts?

You said "Islam's sole purpose is to destroy anything not islamic"

Lets just stop for a minute shall we?

Even if I could agree that Islam in its entirety was out to destroy other world religions, I couldn't be stupid enough to believe it was the "sole purpose."

If you're right coach, then lets consider the following.

Q: Are muslims interesting in honouring Mohammed and Allah?
A: Nope. Just out to destroy other faiths.

Q: Do devout muslims feel the need to fast during Ramadan?
A: Nope. Just out to destroy other faiths.

Q: Are muslims interested in expanding their knowledge of the Qu'ran?
A: Nope. Just out to destroy other faiths.

See where I'm going with this? Yes - there are extremists out there. But the billion or so Muslims aren't robots, they are actual human beings.

Honestly, sometimes these anti-muslim posts really do head for the realm of utter stupidity.

Its funny but that ahmadinejad transcript starts making sense when one opens their spiritual eye and also sees god in our every moment of our lives and events around us...

and its hard to reason bollinger, when he should know that by not including all relevant material issues in consideration he is opening himself to being called 'biased' which immediately invalidates what he has said...

Also when one looks at history and how events transpired...one would think that majority of force would be behind a balanced outcome...meaning majority of involved people would naturally favour this...so should override the bush's and khomeni's and corporation's wants and intentions on 'others' if outside scope of reasonable outcome...

But what actually happens is one group, usually most powerful, aggressively seeks and takes full power and authority...to do exactly what they want...meaning unbalanced self interest...using force...and becomes even more worrying when deceit is widely used on common person to justify act...(which complicated by fact that the government eg usa which acting to effect the force is separate from common people of the same country who are increasingly opposing the use of their force...if you see what I mean)

So on reasoning this it seems that those of us whom want an balanced outcome now have to use a form of force as well to prevent an unbalanced outcome, and to force through a balanced outcome ie weaken the negative and strengthen the positive...now reason this out for a moment to see the madness in it...and so what is the form of this new 'counter-force' that has to be attentive and aware, powerful, lithe and adaptable while ensuring the 'courupting-force' using power or deceit does not infiltrate...hmmm again...

and its becoming important to ensure this, as we can see this world is truly a small place and harder to see people as 'us' and 'them' anymore...and these events of destruction for benefit 'over-there' is increasingly affecting more of us 'over-here' and find we have to carry some of the burden of the destructive act, even simply because we did not see, think and act...

Sam