or are we just going to ignore what bush says?
2006-09-25 05:33:56 · 13 answers · asked by bush-deathgrip 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Describing entire nations as evil, so you can out them on you hit list and scare them into doing what you want them to do, is way worse.
2006-09-25 05:37:21 · answer #1 · answered by courage 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, someone else brought this up last night. Bush is no better than Chavez for calling the entire nations of Iraq and N Korea the "axis of evil". For that matter the Republicans hero, Reagan did the same thing calling the Soviets the "evil empire".
Now Falwell is on record saying that Hilary Clinton is worse than Lucifer. This really shows that he and his supporters are more concerned about politics than religion.
2006-09-25 12:38:32 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Assuming you are speaking of Iraq and Iran, President Bush did not call the countries evil, nor did he say the people of these countries are evil. If you are going to make such statements, you need to work on accuracy. Victor Chavez is an evil ruler, more like the devil than any of our US presidents. People of Venezuela have actually been ordered killed by him for speaking out against him. Saddam Hussein is on trial for torturous and murderous crimes against the people of his country. Usama Bin Laden is not the ruler of any country, just the leader of a terrorist organization that wants us all dead. You should thank God that you live in the United States where you have the freedom of speech. You are free to be not only inaccurate, but also an idiot.
2006-09-25 12:53:45 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The elite operate with impunity.
Therefore it is better for radicalized Mideastern men to blame all of America than to say Bush is the devil, and root of the problem.
Sure the altruistic will disagree; but I the Skull&Bones, have the money and make the decides.
2006-09-25 12:53:06 · answer #4 · answered by Skull&Bones 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Describing entire nations as evil is much worse.
2006-09-25 12:45:10 · answer #5 · answered by Sincere Questioner 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What is worse?
Gassing thousands of Kurds and Shi'ites, executing the largest Muslim genocide in decades (thank you Saddam), or calling Saddam 'evil' ?
What is worse?
Incarcerating thousands of Iranians with no charge or trial, often torturing or executing the incarcerated, for speaking or writing against the government, or calling this type of extreme and oppressive regime 'evil'?
What is worse?
Spending a majority of your national budget (and almost all foreign aid) on the military while your people starve to death (low figure 200k, high figure 3.5 million North Koreans died of starvation in the period 1990-2004), or calling the psychotic leader of this nation 'evil'?
What is worse?
Supporting the wrongdoing of others, just because they subscribe to your view of just one man, or supporting your nation at a time of war against men who are OBJECTIVELY evil and despotic by nature, and have led their peaceful and hopeful people down a path of starvation, genocide and the precipice of nuclear holocaust?
You perceive Mr. Bush, for all his faults and faux-pas, to be on the wrong side of history and therefore a poor representation of true American identity and character. However, the US along with several other nations not 'in love' with N. Korea has provided all measure of aid and assistance to the N. Korean and Iraqi people, even though their current and previous leadership (respectively) vowed to destroy America and Americans and built up tangible assets to achieve this result.
Which is worse? Believing the empty rhetoric of a South American junta thug? Or siding yourself with the worst of mankind, simply because they share your opinion of a president with only 2 years remaining in office.
Keep your head up, there's a train headed right for you, while you listen to the gibberish of people who make a living on the backs of the ignorant and aimlessly passionate.
2006-09-25 12:48:54 · answer #6 · answered by rohannesian 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I personally love to call people "the Devil" I refer to John Edwards as Damien Omen 3 and I also refer to certain nations as evil frequently.
NOW, Americans should be outraged that this cocaine king comes to OUR country and denounces OUR President, that is certain.
He would NOT have gotten away with that kind of talk in MY part of the nation. In NYC, you have plenty of flag burning libs to listen to that B.S., not around here. He would have been executed and fed to the pigs, they even eat the bones you know, in just a few short minutes.
2006-09-25 12:38:11 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
I agree - it was awful, just awful when Ronnie called the Soviet Union an 'evil empire'.
He had no reason to do that! It was very mean and hurt a lot of FEELINGS all over the Soviet empire. The rudeness of that man! Well, at least he's dead and gone now and we have Bush to kick around in his stead.
Ain't life grand!?!
2006-09-25 12:39:30 · answer #8 · answered by Walter Ridgeley 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
In both cases, it's demonizing - and all that does is create more demons...!
It's an awfully attactive thing to do though - if you can demonize your opponent, well, hey, then you can do anything you want to them and it seems OK - in fact, you can start acting pretty demonically *yourself* and never even notice.
In this way do the demons reproduce themselves.
2006-09-25 12:39:55 · answer #9 · answered by smendler 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Satan was once an angel.Were the evil nations ever free?
2006-09-25 12:41:20 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋