Should George Bush get the Hypocrite of the Year Award?

[HHDomains]

Many of you know that I'm not a fan of Bush.

Even if you are a Bush supporter does this not bother you?

Bush has been pushing hard, in places where he just doesn't belong, for "democracy" and "democratic elections".

Well, here's the news. In Iran they had democratic elections and they chose their leader.
In Palestine they had democratic elections and they chose their leaders.

NOW, Bush is claiming that Hamas can't be recognized because they don't conform to his version of a democracy.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. There is no such thing as a democracy, ONLY if it is the democracy Bush approves of.


Thoughts?

 

[ZuraX]

Will you dems give it up already?

 

[CrazyTech]

So you vote for legitimizing a known terrorist organization, right? Sounds like a liberal idea to me! Congratulations, you've handed them the kind of moral victory that they were looking for. Bush is completely right not to legitimize any sort of terrorist group.

If Hamas can come to the table, drop the "death to Israel" found in their charter, and end the practice of killing anyone they don't like then they're more then welcome to join the recognized governments of the world.

It's not a democracy when terrorists are running it.

 

[t0x1c]

I understand your point, but when it's about a bunch of terrorists I understand his stance on it.

 

[Ixix]

why does it seem like the other guy's always the terrorist?

but i'm a cynic at heart....the current (and future) administration never had the intention of opening up dialogue with "those people" so this gives him the perfect opportunity to back out. Unless the leadership are yankee wanna bees, then it's 'hit the road Jack...(or in this case) Abdulla'

do honestly think there was ever hope in the first place?!? HA! Dreamer!

It's not a democracy when terrorists are running it.

Re look up the word....

Democracy:
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

If it walks like a duck, eats like a duck, and quacks like a duck...then it's a duck :hehe: now, are we going to live up to our end of the bargain? or did we place provisions on deal?

Maybe that's what happen with Gore election debacle...i mean he DID win the popular vote..... but the american people were to 'dumb' to choose there own leader (Sarcasm injected in that statement)? Hmmmmm :yell:

 

[HHDomains]

How is the Israeli right wing and different than Hamas.
You call the a terrorist organization because you don't agree with them. They are terrorists because they don't get 3 billion dollars from the US government every year like Israel does, so they can't afford uniforms and they can't afford to send planes over Israel to bomb them like Israel does to Palestine.

I didn't legitimize Hamas, Bush did when insisted on spreading "democracy" through the Middle East. Without Bush's help Hamas would never have been able to take the leadership of Palestine.

It's no less of a democracy just because the side you wanted to win didn't win.

 

[-db-]

Ah yes.... the type of thread I dream about seeing when I first wake up Saturday morning.

NOT!

 

[HHDomains]

Probably a nightmare for the mods _db_ I know. The thread title may be a little inflammatory but I think it's a discussable issue.

 

[smub]

i just dont get the part why why why does he have to get into other countries business ... this is like Germany doing in WW1 and 2

 

[brewmonkey]

I suppose then Clinton was very much deserving of this award when he was in office.

The facts are that no matter who is president someone is not going to be happy. Rather then sit back and point fingers while playing Monday morning quarterback you get out there and do something about it when it comes time for the next election.

As for who won the popular vote, old news and not the first time in history that it has happened.

1824- John Quincy Adams received 38K fewer votes then Andrew Jackson but won the Presidency.

1876- Rutherford B. Hayes lost the popular vote to Samuel Tilden but with a 1 vote margin in the electoral college became President. If you want to read something interesting on the electoral college dig deeper into this one! Colorado had just been admitted to the union and did not hold an election, however they did appoint 3 electoral college voters who ended up casting for Hayes. So he actually won by getting the votes from a state that held no election!

1888- Benjamin Harrison lost by about 95K to Grover Cleveland but won the electoral college.

2000- Al Gore v. George Bush.

In 1801 and in 1825 the vote was decided by the House of Reps. In the 1801 case both men received the same exact number of electoral votes and it took 36 votes in the house before a winner was declared.

The 1825 case stems from the 1824 election where Jackson did receive the majority of the popular vote but neither man earned enough of the electoral votes required to be declared the victor.


When it comes to the Israeli right wing and Hamas it is apples and oranges. When was the last time an Israeli sent someone packed with explosives into the middle of a market and killed scores of women and children whose only "Crime" was being Jewish?

Your statement as to why we do not recognize Hamas as a legit government is not accurate. It has nothing to do with what our version of democracy is, it has to do with the reign of terror that Hamas is responsible for. Perhaps you should read up on the intifada?

We will not recognize them until they renounce their support of terrorism and suicide bombings and Israels right to exist. None of which they have done nor seem willing to do as it is actually written into their own charter.

They refuse to recognize the Oslo accord and they are known to pay very well the families of suicide bomber who attack Israeli people. Sure, this is a government that we want to recognize. There goal is to eradicate Jews and claim Israel as their own land, the whole of the country, not just a piece.

 

[Robert Allen]

No, Tony Bliar should get it, not george bush. He is more of a bum than anything. He is all talk and no action. Schools are falling apart and our economy is getting weaker...

 

[HHDomains]

When it comes to the Israeli right wing and Hamas it is apples and oranges. When was the last time an Israeli sent someone packed with explosives into the middle of a market and killed scores of women and children whose only "Crime" was being Jewish?

This is what the whole issue boils down to. Israelis kill Palestinians because they are Palestinians.
Palestinians kill Israelis because they are Israelis.

It is not apples and oranges.
Hamas doesn't have the luxury of a 3 billion dollar annual gift from the US. Israel does not have to resort to "terrorist" tactics because they have a fully developed US backed army to do their dirty work.

Don't forget, the US wouldn't exist today if it were not for the very same tactics that you now consider to be terrorist acts. Why? Because the British had the money and the forces and Americans had to fight by whatever means necessary.

 

[charbar]

I understand your point, but when it's about a bunch of terrorists I understand his stance on it.

...I must agree.....Hamas may have a technical right to be recognised....but not a moral one....

How is the Israeli right wing and different than Hamas.
You call the a terrorist organization because you don't agree with them. They are terrorists because they don't get 3 billion dollars from the US government every year like Israel does, so they can't afford uniforms and they can't afford to send planes over Israel to bomb them like Israel does to Palestine.

I didn't legitimize Hamas, Bush did when insisted on spreading "democracy" through the Middle East. Without Bush's help Hamas would never have been able to take the leadership of Palestine.

It's no less of a democracy just because the side you wanted to win didn't win.

....that's correct, but no democracy on earth would condone the DELIBERATE massacre of innocents.

 

[HHDomains]

It depends on what you consider "condone" to mean.

US forces killed innocent women and children last week in Afghanistan when they though they could kill an al quaeda leader.

They knew that innocent people would die yet they justified it by saying the target was worth loss of civilian lives. Even after the report came out they still defended it.

How is that any different?

 

[CrazyTech]

You call the a terrorist organization because you don't agree with them. They are terrorists because they don't get 3 billion dollars from the US government every year like Israel does, so they can't afford uniforms and they can't afford to send planes over Israel to bomb them like Israel does to Palestine.

I call them a terrorist organization because they bring war to everyone. They don't fight soldiers, they go out and detonate bombs in the middle of civilian crowds. They kill the kids because in their reasoning they could grow up to be soldiers and they kill the women because they could give birth to the next soldier.

Hamas doesn't have the luxury of a 3 billion dollar annual gift from the US.

You're right, they don't get it from the US, they get it elsewhere.

Don't forget, the US wouldn't exist today if it were not for the very same tactics that you now consider to be terrorist acts. Why? Because the British had the money and the forces and Americans had to fight by whatever means necessary.

You could not possibly be more wrong on that. The revolutionaries did not make it a habit to slaughter the loyalist and British women and children. Unlike the cowards of organizations such as Hamas, they went toe to toe with the army.

US forces killed innocent women and children last week in Afghanistan when they though they could kill an al quaeda leader.

There's a difference when deliberately targeting civilians my friend. We're at war and people will die - it's a tragic fact of life.

 

[HHDomains]

Denver, the US has killed civilians even recently when they thought the target justified it. How is that different?

 

[CrazyTech]

Denver, the US has killed civilians even recently when they thought the target justified it. How is that different?

It's clearly different because the target of the mission was the number two man in the world's most infamous group responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people. The people there knew who they were receiving and I'm sure they knew the risks.

If you cannot see a difference in that and the deliberate detonating of a bomb in a crowd of women and children who's only crime is their Jewish race then there is simply nothing more for me to say.

 

[HHDomains]

How do you know the people there knew who they were receiving?
The fact is he was never there so these innocent civilians who were killed may have had no connection at all.
Are you saying the children that were murdered are responsible for who may come to their home?

You are simply rationalizing. When a "terrorist" kills innocent people it's a terrorist act but when Americans kill innocent civilians it's "colateral damage" of necessary because the US decided the target justified the murder of civilians.

Sorry, but you just can't have it both ways.

 

[CrazyTech]

How do you know the people there knew who they were receiving?
The fact is he was never there so these innocent civilians who were killed may have had no connection at all.
Are you saying the children that were murdered are responsible for who may come to their home?

These people are virtual celebrities over there.

Quite frankly, the lives of the thousands are worth more than the lives of a few. Call me cold, call me whatever you like, but it's the real world that we're talking about here. The rest is not worth the response.

Either way, that does not matter. We were going after the man responsible for killing thousands. Hamas is going after women and children because they were born. But there's no difference in that right?

You are simply rationalizing. When a "terrorist" kills innocent people it's a terrorist act but when Americans kill innocent civilians it's "colateral damage" of necessary because the US decided the target justified the murder of civilians.

Call it whatever you like but you're apparently blind to the meaning of my post and blind to the difference of targets. As I said, if you cannot see a difference in what I posted then there is no need for me to continue on. I rest my case with this post and wash my hands of this thread. Hope for you is lost.

With your logic going the way it is, the holocaust would be a campaign in a freedom fighter's war too.

 

[HHDomains]

You can wash your hands all you like and dismiss my posts, I care very little.

The fact remains that you choose to believe that it's OK for Americans to indiscriminately kill as many civilians as they choose as long as the target is big enough and as long as YOU agree with the target.

If that makes you sleep better at night then more power to you.

For most of us a dead civilian is a dead civilian and the target is irrelevant.

You still haven't answered the question and I'm sure you won't as to what makes you any better than the "terrorists" when the end result is the same.