The ideals of the Republican Party represented by Bush means that he believes in the smallest government possible (Dictatorship is the best) whereby favoring certain capitalist organizations to take over those powers (Aristocratic Rule without responsibility or representation its citizens) and installment of the ability to use tax dollars to foster particular religious affiliations (abandonment of the First Amendment). On ideology alone, his aim is clearly National Socialistic.
Where did Bush favor dictatorship or "certain capitalist organizations" to take over? And why was Bush such an ally to Israel then? Truly tyrannical regimes make friends with other tyrannical regimes.
Watch the documentary. Here it is again:
Iraq For Sale: The War Profiteers ]. The State of Israel itself is a contentious issue that Republican defenders pretend are good people without warrant. Republicans have always supported them regardless of their ever more National Socialist attitudes similar to the Nazis they were targeted by. And their National Socialism is Constitutionalized! The belief that Christ will come down only when the Jewish Temple is rebuilt necessarily requires that Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians to support them.
Is this just another blind belief in something else that's 'supposed' to be?
As I pointed out, top members of Congress don't get their intelligence from the White House. So it wasn't like all Congress had to rely on was the Bush administration itself on the issue.
See the Executive Order link in the previous post.
How was the significance of Iraq's evil dictatorship more prevalent than say, taking out North Korea's, instead? ...
I agree on that part. That the people of Iraq were oppressed wasn't significant justification unto itself from a blood and treasure standpoint to go invading the country. But that was in addition to the evidence regarding Hussein having WMDs.Saddam didn't have WDMs. Where were you when the one single informant who gave the justification for the second Iraq War by Bush was blindly trusted without normal justification procedures that even a local newspaper is assured to follow? This wasn't a simple accidental oversight. All news publications, scientific journals, ordinary police officers, and any everyday Joe wants corroboration to determine any serious accusation to charge someone of offense. Am I able to accuse anyone of a crime, not to mention, in anonymity, and have someone, not just charged with whatever offense, but convicted without authorities corroborating the evidence? It isn't possible that even the dumbest President would not question it without being sincerely crooked and deceptive himself. And certainly, a whole large organization of highly trained CIA agents could not have had at least one person who would question the integrity of such a claim. It is like a guard at a Nazi an extermination camp declaring oddly that he didn't notice the population of people had any Jews!
You presume that I'm making this up out of thin air, or what? The conservative political agenda of the Republican Party is to conserve the traditional institutions and people of those who they believe to be more original to the United States Nationality and pride. This, to them, is the Protestant Christians, the capital interests of the economic status quo and their social privileges. This is no different than Hitler's preservation of the past Aryan nationality to Germany.
There is a HUGE difference between what the conservative political agenda is and Hitler's National Socialists. For one, if conservatives really believed in preserving specific economic interests, they would not favor smaller government. Smaller government doesn't preserve said interests. If you want to control economic interests, you want large government. But conservatives believe in economic freedom. Historically, economic freedom is tied to political freedom, which is something else conservatives also believe very much in.
The Nazi Government was extremely small. To govern requires those who govern to have control on what happens. I think a "dictatorship" tends to suggest extremely limited government, wouldn't you say? Also, the Nazi's believed in economic freedom. That freedom was limited to the German Aryan race, however. In Americas origins, they too had a selective mindset as well, considering they didn't invite the large Native population as relevant to land ownership and other economic freedoms.
You are confusing the term "conservative" as it has traditionally been used in European nations to refer to aristocrats who want to preserve the status quo. Conservatives in America do not want to preserve any status quo. They do seek to be fiscally conservative, are often more socially conservative, and seek to preserve the main institutional pillars of our society, but those pillars are what allow constant change and dynamism. So for example, conservatives will argue against larger government in the economy because this infringes on the free market and thus its ability to create constant innovation, change, and economic growth. Conservatives argue in favor of liberal democracy because it permits constant change in the political system. The term "liberal" also gets misused. In America, "liberal" means of the left, but in other countries, the word refers to those on the right.
National Socialism actually had a lot more in common with progressivism (as like socialism, it is a variant of the left). Both favor large government, government control over the economy (or a large governmental presence in the economy), and eugenics. It was the progressives who drove the eugenics movement in the United States during the 1920s and 1930s. Here it resulted in the forced sterilization of many people. In Germany, it resulted in outright genocide. It was the United States where the eugenics movement originated, but then the Nazis picked up on it. And this is one of the reasons why conservatives are oftentimes so against things like abortion, because abortion means one is allowing the State to determine the intrinsic value of human life, which can be dangerous (IMO both left and right take the abortion issue to the extreme).
You made more distinctions without actual differences in this quote more than ever.
Conservative and
Liberal are appropriately understood by intelligent people everywhere in the same way. You have to provide evidence where such and assumption that others presume otherwise rather than just making it up. Where you get the idea that anyone would ever presume "liberal" mean right is absurd. In fact, more likely, you yourself do not know the actual meanings. Liberalism, is understood everywhere to mean a political philosophy which grants the right of all individuals the freedom to do whatever they want whenever they want as long as they do not infringe on the same freedoms (liberty) of other people to do and be the same. For example, I am able to smoke pot, for instance, in such a philosophy, if only I act in such a way that it could not possibly limit another person's liberty to exist freely. This is considered contentious by some even who are 'liberal' because some believe that it does infringe on other people's rights to the liberties of life they choose. We do not allow murder because if I have such a freedom, then it means that I can limit another person's freedom to live.
Contrary, Conservatives (a rather inexact term because only in a contemporary reference does it imply any special philosophy because the conservatives of Lincoln's day were actually of the Democratic Party which defended the older ways of slavery, for instance), want the older ways of religious absolutism of morality that dictates from things like the Bible what should be right or wrong, not a convention of people who vote for what is moral based on a freedom to do anything you want.
No one interpreted Bush as threatening nuclear war on them. It meant economic sanctions. Don't dismiss his intent by your assumptions. His words were clear.
I don't think he meant any specific policies, he just meant if you harbor terrorists, you will not be considered a friend of the United States.
President George W. Bush, in an address to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001 said, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." (See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You're_either_with_us,_or_against_us ] This source also references and links you to the actual speech in full. He didn't 'just mean' that. What you miss that other nations don't is that they pay attention to media more globally than most Americans. We watch all your media as well as our own with the same fervor. You miss how our own politicians act globally and then get American political responses. Prior to 9/11 Bush was pushing for war with Iraq and our countries were not convinced through the U.N. Bush was denouncing the U.N. because they wanted to act but the
majority of all democracies represented by them did not have legitimate logical grounds for war. And on 9/11, Bush unilaterally decided to go to war without the U.N. (majority of all democratic nations) Only Britain and Australia gave their full support and were given this attention by America. Bush claimed in the speech things like Al Qaeda as being associated with Iraq which were blatantly false. Everyone supported the war in Afghanistan which was relevant because that is where the terrorist of 9/11 were from. We also all knew that the Arab nation was also at fault because that is where Osama Bin Laden's family, finances, and support were from. America tolerated the totalitarianism and tyranny of Arab and even Pakistan which were more of the cause of 9/11 than Muslims from anywhere else.
Communism was illogically feared in the first place. The mere paranoia from the Americans is mostly responsible for the treatment of the U.S.S.R. towards their people by forcing unnecessary resources to fund their own nuclear armament and effort to secure themselves. I wander if they were just left alone from the beginning without external pressures and economic sanctions whether they would have either succeeded to a better society or learned earlier on their own to abandon it.?
!!!!!!!!!!!! Communism was illogically feared? And the U.S. was responsible for the treatment of the Soviets towards their own people? For one, they were left alone. They only got countered by the United States due to their constant aggression. Keep in mind what they did to Hungary and Czechoslovakia for example. They funded oppressive communist regimes all over the world, and regarding their treatment of their own people, that is because they were an authoritarian socialist system that was horrendously oppressive.
Every large country has it's horrors that they've done to their own people throughout history. It doesn't justify anything. But it should point out that acts done in the name of all political philosophies have equal credit to severe injustices. What bothers me is when people credit certain ideologies with the innate justification for atrocities that occurred inappropriately. Bush's acts for instance are due not to American ideology of philosophy. They are his and those who support him alone.