Comments on 2005-07-17 thoughts of war part II: You're right of course. It's unfair and inaccurate to use the word "American" when referring to . . .
Terrorism looks good for capitalism…
Especially for the weapon makers’industry!
I am not anti-american, but I agree with you on a lot of the thoughts expressed here.
– Baron bleu-obscur 2005-07-17 12:14 UTC
Yep. It’s ironic that US industry – especially weapons manufacture (and Haliburton, of course!) tends to benefit wherever Peace is on Bush’s lips.
I’m not Anti-American at all, even though it might seem otherwise. I’ve worked there, and in general like the people and the innate optimism immensely.
I just don’t accept that Bush is America Incarnate and His Words are The Voice of Patriotism.
Surely after Watergate, Clintongate and every other -gate there’s been, the US people would have realized one simple truth: The President Lies for His Own Gain. It’s in the job description.
– GreyWulf 2005-07-17 18:19 UTC
I don’t agree with your President’s job description…
If so, it would be the free-for-all everywhere!
Who can you trust if you cannot trust the President of the United States?…
I met in my job several persons from the United States and I usually found them very friendly.
I am used to call them Unitedstaters and not Americans.
The reason is that America is not only the United States but a very huge continent.
As a Canadian, I am an American as the people from Mexico, Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Chile and all the countries in Central and South America.
That seems to be very hard to understand for some of them!
And when I hear Mr Bush talking in the name of America, I always feel uncomfortable.
– Baron bleu-obscur 2005-07-18 02:53 UTC
You’re right of course. It’s unfair and inaccurate to use the word “American” when referring to people in the US alone. I’m in the UK, and it would be like referring to everyone in the UK as “Europeans”, thereby tarring the French, German, Italian, etc nations with the same brush.
I stand corrected :)
We’d certainly hope that the President of the United States could be trusted, yes. In theory, there are controls in place (the senate, the United Nations) to make sure that the President cannot do what the heck he likes. Unfortunately, since 911, those controls have broken down. The United Nations granted the US carte blanche regarding it’s actions in Iraq, Afghanistan and wherever the whim takes them in this mythical War on Terror.
To critisize the President now is to criticize the US itself. The two have become entwined to a frightening and destructive level. The Predident’s word is not the word of the United States. It’s the word of one man with his own agenda. I believe that agenda is flawed and corrupt.
Yes, I would love to trust the current US President. But I don’t trust his motives, I believe his methods are questionable and inhuman, and I see the only ones who gain from the US’s presence in oil-rich countries are US businesses linked to George Bush and his administration.
And I still see people suffering.
– GreyWulf 2005-07-18 18:13 UTC