After posting in a little thread about the 12 warning signs of fascism. I started thinking to myself with all the things wrong with American are we really fascist Nazi hopefuls and how does Bush stack up to Hitler. Here is some fun comparisons I’m sure well be disagreed with.

1. Hitler was very well spoken and with only speeches could inspire people to do horrible things. Bush can’t inspire a starving man to eat.

2. Hitler pointed out the enemy of the German people the Jews. The enemy of the US pointed it’s self out to us.

3. Hitler made Jews wear little stars to point out who they are. As of right now we still haven’t made Muslims wear little crescents.

4. Hitler concentrated all the Jews he could find in concentration camps for extermination. The US concentrated everyone that shot a gun at us (and had funny beards) into Guantanamo. There are still around 6 million Muslims walking around the US freely. What the hell Bush get off your @ss!

5. Hitler evaded all his neighbors and collected Jews along the way. Ok we evaded 2 countries, but thinking like Hitler he would have just eradicated all the Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why bother to rebuild the country when you can just go in take what you want and kill everything that stands in you way? Would the other countries in the world really do anything?

America as a hole has never really changed it has always had the same mind set it has never been the friendly free place it is made out to be. It has never deviated from that course it has always been on. Is it an Evil Empire bent on world domination? This is truer in the past then it is now. If so then we are defiantly watered down fascist I would say 40% Fascist, 50% water, and 10% hot air.

http://mvp-seattle.com/pages/pageFascism.htm)

What can be seen in this is what you want to see. Is it true I would say Yes. It is also a manipulation of perspective. Like my 5 points above.

If this is true then we have always been fascists from the start, but no more then any other government in the world China, Russia, or the EU. The France riots someone isn’t happy there I wonder why? With all the Evils of the rest of the world the US is a bunching bag. Not only for the people looking for a fight, but for the countries that want to take the attention of themselves. If it gets too hot in the kitchen blame America for something.

I say don’t be a hypocrite the USA isn’t perfect and never will be. There isn’t many places as good and a lot of places that are worse.

Fair enough. The US does insist on making itself a big target though.. and it's political directions are important to a lot of people here because (a) a lot of people here are from the USA or (b) its policies impact on a lot of other countries.

the polices of france, for example, have a minimal impact outside france... however i'm not at all averse to discussing some of the problems with french or british politics/policy if you want. Its just that I doubt there would be that many people here who would care much.

The US, for the moment, is about the only country that can unilaterally change the world through its policies. I'm sure that as the US dominance declines and china's increases we will start to worry more about their polices... but I'm not sure that many of us here would be able to debate them.

---

I'd argue with your point 1 though: Bush is an excellent public speaker. Obviously he makes loads of stupid gramatical mistakes (though less recently) and things don't make much sense when you actually analyse the CONTENT... but he is a great showman, and can do his "man of the people" act very well.

Infact it is a worry trend in a lot of countries (the US, UK (blair, cameron), France (chirac), Italy (berlusconi) that many of the leaders of the political parties appear to get buy on sheer personality... everyone knows they are a bit crap, half their parties don't approve of them, they are very thin on actual detail, and full on polish and style.
It tends to lead to demagogue style personality politics... where they don't need to provide proof or facts.. they just go "trust me".

However no-one (unless they control the media like italy/russia) can keep up that sort of act forever, and eventually people realise that under the glitz there is very little substance... as has started to happen with Bush and Blair recently.

Let me comment on the "12 signs":

Exhuberant Nationalism - We are the United States of America, shouldn't we act like it? Honestly, if supporting your country makes you a Nazi, every human on Earth is a Nazim then. Really, the author needs a reality check here.

Enemies Identified - Is that a problem? Knowing who is a friend and who is not is a basic aspect of human survival. We aren't saying the world is our enemy. This page is quite silly, to the point that it's funny.

Rights disappear - What rights have been infringed on? The wire taps? Those are only for calls going into and out of places like Iran, Iraq, and the like. They aren't monitoring me when I ask out my g/f over the phone. (Not long after 9/11, they actually did tap in at random for a while. I actually heard clicks on the phone around Sep. 15th, and we'd joke about the CIA tapping in on us plotting to terrorize local kids. Was it really the CIA? I dunno.)

Secrecy demanded - Quite the contrary. The CIA, FBI and the like have never communicated more freely. And while no US citizen is privvy to government secrets, as in Top Secret encrypted documents, that has never been a problem in the past.

Corporations shielded - That's so pathetic it's not even worth a rebuttal.

Corruption unchecked - Silly me, we should really be monitoring the dems for corruption. Our bad.

Media controlled - :lol: The media may be controlled - by the liberals! :lol: The media takes all opportunity to bash Bush. This is more than ludicrice. It's downright funny.

Rampant sexism - WHAT??? Where has Bush opposed or oppressed women? Methinks the woman in that photo is a nut.

Intellectual bullying - Was that thrown in just so they could reach 12? FOA, there is hardly intellectal bullying. I'm not even sure what the hell they're saying about that. And second, WTF is that pic? Is that water coming out of a stomach?

Police militarized - When were the police sent to Iraq? I must have missed that news report. (Hint: they weren't)

Elections stolen - That is as ridiculous as the rest. The fact that the Dems have screamed it since 2000 is irrelevant. It doesn't make this idiotic statement any less false. It was a close race, but I would have had no problem with recounts. We could do that until the cows came home, but W still won the election. Sheesh.

I evade my neighbors too, they scare me.



*smartass*

Rights disappear - What rights have been infringed on?
Oh, I dunno, maybe the unlawful and warrant-less arrests and holdings of innocent civilians.

Exhuberant Nationalism - We are the United States of America, shouldn't we act like it?

If by 'act like it' you mean taking illegal unilateral action, then the answer is a resounding no.

Enemies Identified - Is that a problem?

Enemies identified as in 'fictitious enemies identified.'

Rights disappear - What rights have been infringed on?

Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, NSA spying on their own citizens, the right to reproductive health, warrentless detentions, torture-by-proxy, PATRIOT Act.

Secrecy demanded - Quite the contrary. The CIA, FBI and the like have never communicated more freely.

'Black' CIA flights to countries known to employ torture and arbitrary execution, PATRIOT Act, 'black' courts, 'black' investigations, concentration of arbitrary power in the Executive. And those being just the ones we know about.

Corporations shielded - That's so pathetic it's not even worth a rebuttal.

Enron, Haliburton, Diebold, Carlyle, Dynegy, Adelphia, WorldCom. And those are just the ones we knew about in mid-02. Notably they are known because they crashed spectacularily - making their CEOs fabulously wealthy in the process, BTW - or because they failed to maintain operational security on their shady transactions, not because anyone in the Gov or GOP bothered to lift a finger to expose or stop them.

Then, of course, there's the S&L trusts of the Reagan/Bush1 era...

Corruption unchecked - Silly me, we should really be monitoring the dems for corruption.

Delay, Abramoff, Taft. And those are just off the top of my head. I could add about half of the crony corporations from the previous section - and those are only the ones I know about and can recall spontaneously.

Media controlled - :lol: The media may be controlled - by the liberals!

Fux News, CBS, ABC, CNN, Weekly Standard, New York Post, Just-about-anything-with-'Sun'-in-its-name.

:lol: The media takes all opportunity to bash Bush.

Ooh, no. Not at all. I invite you to take out subscriptions on BBC World and Der Spiegel (they also have a nice website in english). You watch only the conservative part of the US media. What you see is only the very top of the iceberg.

Rampant sexism - WHAT???

Reproductive health, equal opportunity employment, salary discrepancy.

Intellectual bullying - Was that thrown in just so they could reach 12?

Intelligent Design Creationism, YECs on the SCOTUS, global warming denial, biotech research clampdown, environmental legislation.

Police militarized - When were the police sent to Iraq? I must have missed that news report.

OK, I'll concede that one. So, we're down to 11/12

Elections stolen - That is as ridiculous as the rest.

Lemme see (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_ir) regularities)... We have a regime in power in D.C. that has repeatedly shown itself to care little for the rule of law as pertains to foreign countries and citizens. This regime has significant control of the shaping of election districts - and uses this control to skew the odds in their favor.

It then partially changes the voting hardware and software used in elections - and uses a firm to which it has close financial and personal ties (and which has a laundry list of cronyism scandals associated with it). The software and hardware used are easily penetrated by hackers. Memos are leaked that show strong signs of dishonest intend.

Election results match poorly with exit polls. Election results match poorly with 'horserace' Gallup polls. Election results match poorly with the number of registered voters. Election results match poorly with observed voter turnout.

The congress - which, as we recall, is currently controlled by the regime - rules that the controversial result stands, despite the fact that charges of election fraud have been filed.

Sure, you might believe that the regime is pure as the driven snow. You might believe that Diebold is not a corrupt crony deliberatly designing their machines to skew results. You might believe that exit polls, gallup polls, voter registration (!) and observations of voter turnout are all off at the same time. And you might believe that the regime-controlled congress blocked a baseless nuisance suit.

Are you willing to bet your democracy on it?

PS: I'm not even going into the media situation. US media are about as critical of the current regime as Chinese media of the PolitBuro - but that's for another time.

EDIT: I notice that you have not commented on the disappearing rights issue. Do you concede that point, or is it just a slippage?

If you've seen any of the footage that came out of the police cracking down on protesters in Miami a couple of years ago, or seeing them gear up for the various political National Conventions, it might be possible to make a case for "Police Militarized."

And reports of the FBI monitoring and infiltrating various Peace Activism groups around the country could possibly get chalked-up to "Enemies Identified."

Not to say Bush is Hitler (not by far), but:

1. Hitler was very well spoken and with only speeches could inspire people to do horrible things. Bush can’t inspire a starving man to eat.
No, he'd just tell the guy to get a job or starve to death:D.

He can, however, inspire people to go to war, call dissenters anti-American a-holes, and accept the PATRIOT ACT and the tax cuts. To mention some things.

2. Hitler pointed out the enemy of the German people the Jews. The enemy of the US pointed it’s self out to us.
One of them did. The rest (Iraq, Nigeria, the dissenters, and so on) were declared hostile by Bush.

3. Hitler made Jews wear little stars to point out who they are. As of right now we still haven’t made Muslims wear little crescents.
Not that they don't already have to wear burkhas:p.

4. Hitler concentrated all the Jews he could find in concentration camps for extermination. The US concentrated everyone that shot a gun at us (and had funny beards) into Guantanamo. There are still around 6 million Muslims walking around the US freely. What the hell Bush get off your @ss!
He also put quite a few political dissenters in jail without due process of the law.

5. Hitler evaded all his neighbors and collected Jews along the way. Ok we evaded 2 countries, but thinking like Hitler he would have just eradicated all the Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why bother to rebuild the country when you can just go in take what you want and kill everything that stands in you way? Would the other countries in the world really do anything?
True enough:).

Fux News, CBS, ABC, CNN, Weekly Standard, New York Post, Just-about-anything-with-'Sun'-in-its-name.
You missed a few...

Here are some from this 'article' (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=banish)
FOX News (Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, John Gibson, Neil Cavuto, Steve Doocy, E.D. Hill, Brian Kilmeade, Brit Hume), Clear Channel, Laura Ingraham, Dr. Laura, Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, Ann Coulter, Newsmax, G. Gordon Liddy, Michael Reagan, Michael Savage, The New York Post, Sinclair Broadcast Group (WLOS13, Fox 45, WTTO21, WB49, KGAN, WICD, WICS, WCHS, WVAH, WTAT, WSTR, WSYX, WTTE, WKEF, WRGT, KDSM, WSMH, WXLV, WURN, KVWB, KFBT, WDKY, WMSN, WVTV, WEAR, WZTV, KOTH, WYZZ, WPGH, WGME, WLFL, WRLH, WUHF, KABB, WGGB, WSYT, WTTA), David Horowitz, Rupert Murdoch, PAX, and MSNBC's Joe Scarborough.

EDIT: I notice that you have not commented on the disappearing rights issue. Do you concede that point, or is it just a slippage?

Uh... read my first post again. I commented.

I'd call Godwin's on the title alone, but it seems this is actually a serious comment on it, so carry on then... carry on. ;)

The "12 Warning Signs of Fascism" are extremely subjective interpretations that could be applied to just about any leader you disagree with. Fascism is a specific political philosophy that gets thrown about by anyone who wants to tar and feather their opponents. I'm sure you could apply the 12 points easily to Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK, Truman or any US president you can think of. Does that mean the US has always been a fascist state? Only if you re-define what "fascism" really means. It's sophistry.

Comparing them to actual self-identified fascists (Hitler, Mussolini, Franco) and their actual policies, actions and philosophies is the only honest way to do it. Otherwise it's just (quite literally) "playing the Hitler card."

The POINT seems to be worry about leaders with too much power or who are corrupt. That's a good thing to be concerned about, but the method of the 12 warning signs is misleading rhetorical choir-preaching as I see it.

Why, thank you, Kurgan. It seems you made my points quite eloquently. :)

Iґm sorry Kurgan, but Franco wasґt fascist at all. He was: franquist. The only common points were the totalitarism and a very centralized and dominant state, with dedicated army and the power of the capitalists.

Why do I say this?

1- Iґm spanish, so I know quite well Franco, and the similitudes with other dictators.
2- I think that fascism itґs badly used in many cases. Like in the USA case: if you want a reason, because the fascist is centraliced, and yours is a federal country. Fascism itґs a totalitarian political form, with hates democracy and uses all the power of the state to pursuit his "enemies", the state was some kind of "god" with no moral, just he "had to take the country ahead". By the way call it authoritarism, itґs easier and it can be of both political sides.

Because all this I think that the USA isnґt a fascist state, although I donґt like the USA exterior politics. But that doesnґt mean we can lie with things as serious as the fascism and the totalitarian regimes.

If I misconstrued Franco's alignment with fascism, my bad. I honestly don't know much about him, just that he's often lumped in with the other fascist leaders of the 20th century (rightly or wrongly)... apologies.

Authoritarian is probably a better term, yes. I think people like to use "fascist" because it immediately evokes images in people's minds of Hitler and Mussolini, which people associate with "ultimate political evil" (even though there were surely more evil men in history) and this makes it the biggest insult you can make against your rhetorical opponent (and yes, it's usually a cheapshot, hence the "playing the Hitler card," Godwin's Law, etc).

How can people say that Bush is Hitler? How many millions more has the tyrant killed that the American president? Was his rise to power through gengster hits and bloodshed? Are Muslims sent to death camps? No one in the world could be as evil as him, whose elite SS Gestapo and Deaths Head were not made up of disciplined soldiers, but thugs who would have relished killing Younglings. I dare say there would be no one in history who could come close to such evil. The only person who you could even consider comparing to Hitler would be Palpatine, whose monsterous actions would make even the Nazi leader green with envy.

Weird, if you consider that GL obviously considers Palpatine's rise to power to be an alegory of Bush's rise to power. ;)

Does he just? Hmmm, I had wondered if maybe there were political or racial nods the way there were in the first three films (Empire = Nazis for example). I was actually waiting th hear the comparison to Bush and Palpatine, or Bush in terms of Star Wars. I was thinking maybe the sand people are an...what was the word you used? Alegory of Islamic militants. But Bush and Palpatine are meant to be similar? Well let's examine that for a moment.

One thing that diffienciates the two is that come 2008 Bush will be gone. He cannot serve another term. Palpatine has been on for far longer than is allowed, at the request of the Senate it is to be believed, but no, eight years will be Bush's term unless it is somehow shortened.

Another thing that can seperate the two is how there is no one union, or empire. True, America is allied with a lot of countries but they are hardly going to be able to take these countries into themselves. The British empire will always be the British empire, and those under it such as Australia, New Zealand, I think Hong Kong was handed back to the Chinease, but the countries under the crown would likely side with Britain, not America. Other countries such as Russia and France who have a healthy dislike to America would likely have to be attacked, and can you imagine the uproar in this day and age were such an idea even proposed?

And then there is the dreaded Order 66. Quite an apt name, and I'm sure the 666 Devil's number was deliberate. I'm not sure of the thinking and the morality of the Clone Troopers, but as much as it may shock you when people jump up and down like organ grinder monkeys over incidents such as Abu Gharib and the propoganga flung about over the atrocities soldiers commit, the vast majority of soldiers, of American soldiers would not gun down civillians even if it were ordered by Bush. They would not turn on their allies. I think that is perhaps more true in this day and age than it was maybe ten or twenty years ago because the world is a lot more wary and skeptical of government and those in power, they are familiar with the expression power corrupts, and hell, I'm sure most people would at least be familiar with the storyline of Revenge of the Sith even if it's not from that particular film. I would give real soldiers more credit than the ones who mindlessly followed orders like the Clone Troopers did.

Lucas let slip on the Empire Strikes Back DVD that he patterend the Empire partly on Hitler's government, since he accidentally called the Imperials "the Nazis."

He's also claimed he based Palpatine the politician on Richard Nixon. And most folks have made the connection between the Republic/Empire and the Roman Republic/Empire. He's associated the Ewoks with the Viet Cong, making the Vietnam connection (and Nixon again, though he was hardly the only U.S. president to serve under the war of course, just the one most often blamed, fairly or unfairly for what went on). Plenty of folks have commented on the british accents and associated the Empire with the British Empire as well.

I think a joke was being made though. ;) The only movies that could possibly have made any comment on Bush would be Episodes II and III. I think a case could be made that he purposely took a few digs at Bush in Episode III, but that's hardly a conspiracy theory or craziness. It's not beyond the realm of possibility, and does not detract from how good (or bad) the movie was.

Anyway, yes, there were more evil men than Hitler in the 20th century. Stalin killed more people (and Stalin's purges of the military might have been the inspiration for the Jedi purge). Maybe he did so less sadistically, but far more people are dead as a direct result of his leadership than as a result of Hitler's. Likewise Mao is responsible for more deaths than both men. What was he thinking? Who knows. But millions are dead thanks to him. So anyway, if bodycount determines evil than Hitler is not #1, though he's certainly what most people would call a monster. Perhaps it's just that since Stalin was our allie during WW2 we didn't demonize him like we did Der Fuhrer...

Yes, I did pick up on the British accents and thought maybe it was Britain vs America, or Allies vs Axis. It's interesting to hear that Nixon was the original model for Palpatine, although I would not be surprised at the comparisons to him and Bush since, proven fact, Bush has become the most hated and is considered the most evil president in history. There would be those who would think that Bush would copy Palpatine's actions, even if seriously this would be a joke, and I am especially glad that it cannot in light of what it can lead to as we see in Revenge of the Sith.

Just on that, has anyone noticed any part of the Star Wars films where there is an attempt to draw comparisons between Bush and Palpatine? I'd be interested to know, even if only to (hopefully) dispell them.

I heard about the atrocities Stalin and the Soviets were behind. There were the gulags and when England sent refugees back to Russia Stalin had them all shot. Religion was banned. And then there was the way the Soviets fought, sending wave after wave of soldiers unarmed and if they seemed like they were going to run they'd be shot. In all honesty I really don't know that much about it however, and I think that may be because it is not talked about much, perhaps not as much as the insidious medical experiments, execution squads, death camps, the whole schmeng that took place during the Nazi's reign of terror.

I don't claim it to be a totally valid comparison.

Infact the bits of the PT films where the characters got all preachy
"The day we stop believing democracy can work, is the day we lose it."
"If you're not with me... then you're my enemy! " (direct bush quote)
etc..
were some of the most heavy handed and worst bits of the film. He could at least have been a bit more subtle about it.

One thing that diffienciates the two is that come 2008 Bush will be gone. He cannot serve another term. Palpatine has been on for far longer than is allowed, at the request of the Senate it is to be believed, but no, eight years will be Bush's term unless it is somehow shortened.

But surely the point GL is trying to make is that by creating a "phantom menace", a 1984 style distant enemy, a jewish style hidden enemy, an al-quaida style ethereal enemy then you can keep people in fear, keep emergency powers, keep in control.

You could argue the best thing that has happened tothe republican party in years is al quaida.. but then i guess they did help build them. (hmm.. clones?)

It might be remotely feasible that if there was a major al quaida attack on US soil just before the elections, and a state of (more) emergency was called then bush could try and hang on to power. In theory... However they do keep renewing the "temporary emergency powers".

Of course the story in the PT is far removed from reality, and greatly exagerated. Bush isn't going to stay in office like palpatine... though you could argue that the same powerhouses will be in control no matter who is in office. He isn't going to give a code 66 to al quaida or anything. Its heavy handed alegory and nothing more.

It just struck me as odd that you claimed that bush couldn't be compared to hitler, only palpatine. When palpatine can be compared to bush. ;)

"It is with great reluctance that I have agreed to this calling. I love democracy. I love the Republic. Once this crisis has abated, I will lay down the powers you have given me! "

"In order to ensure our security and continuing stability, the Republic will be reorganized into the first Galactic Empire, for a safe and secure society which I assure you will last for ten thousand years."
"So this is how liberty dies - with thunderous applause. "
"What if the democracy we thought we were serving no longer exists, and the Republic has become the very evil we have been fighting to destroy? "

"It's outrageous! After four trials in the Supreme Court, Nute Gunray is still the viceroy of the Trade Federation! I feel the Senate is powerless to resolve this crisis. " Comment on the UN/Saddam thing? maybe..

Infact the bits of the PT films where the characters got all preachy
"The day we stop believing democracy can work, is the day we lose it."
"If you're not with me... then you're my enemy! " (direct bush quote)
etc..
were some of the most heavy handed and worst bits of the film. He could at least have been a bit more subtle about it.

I remember that Bush quote, it was to France and Germany. Quite honestly that was a downright stupid thing to say, and it would not surprise me that if GL wanted to make a statement on it then he would have Darth Vader utter the line.

But surely the point GL is trying to make is that by creating a "phantom menace", a 1984 style distant enemy, a jewish style hidden enemy, an al-quaida style ethereal enemy then you can keep people in fear, keep emergency powers, keep in control.
You could argue the best thing that has happened tothe republican party in years is al quaida.. but then i guess they did help build them. (hmm.. clones?)

No, I don't think clones. :roll1: I see what you are saying in trying to keep people thinking about all of these threats, such as keeping the world afraid of Bin Laden. However as we all know that threat is very real even without going into the terrorist acts they carry out (their drug trafficing for example, and people get the idea that Muslims are terrorists because of the actions of groups such as Al Qaeda).

It might be remotely feasible that if there was a major al quaida attack on US soil just before the elections, and a state of (more) emergency was called then bush could try and hang on to power. In theory...

I think it would be more likely that Bush would make himself look like a hero when he is feeling threatened. For example, Bin Laden may have already been captured and Bush is waiting until the news would save him before revealing it. In any case, even if Bush was somehow able to run again the people may well be sick of him by then. Not so in 2004 when despite the best efforts of those who hate Bush he won the election, fairly, with no controversy such as the Florida recounts, but maybe in 2008.

Of course the story in the PT is far removed from reality, and greatly exagerated. Bush isn't going to stay in office like palpatine... though you could argue that the same powerhouses will be in control no matter who is in office. He isn't going to give a code 66 to al quaida or anything. Its heavy handed alegory and nothing more.

And for that we are very most greatful even if some of Bush's critics will not be able to be told otherwise. Just on that note, to hopefully expell any fears people might have of someone else continuing Bush's work, the way governments work is that, especially if it is someone from an opposing party (say the Democrats are voted in next election) they will spend their time in office changing what they can the things they didn't like the last guy had done, and then in the next election if someone else gets it they will spend their time fixing whatb they don't like, and so on and so on. I'm not sure if Bush's lackeys such as Rice or Rumsfeld or Powell will be running for Presidency, for all we know it could be Schwarzenegger and Ventura.

It just struck me as odd that you claimed that bush couldn't be compared to hitler, only palpatine. When palpatine can be compared to bush. ;)

Now that you mention it and it's been discussed, yeah. I actually did a bit of looking into the Bush\Palpatine comparisons and had noticed that there could be quite a few political statements GL may have slipped in, but if we are talking about what monsters these people are, and it is always in that regard when Bush is compared to Hitler, then you have to delve into fiction to find a rival to Hitler. You could say Stalin, or Attila the Hun or Genghis Kahn, or some other tyrant, but as well as them not being as recognisable as Hitler the Nazi leader is very much more the symbol of evil.

It's outrageous! After four trials in the Supreme Court, Nute Gunray is still the viceroy of the Trade Federation! I feel the Senate is powerless to resolve this crisis. " Comment on the UN/Saddam thing? maybe..

Or Florida? Those other quotes were on sites comparing Bush to Palpatine, but I wouldn't say that we are heading down the path where we celebrate the death of liberty. On the contrary, there is overwhelming protest whenever there is even the slightest hint that a right to terrorists may be denied, to say nothing of the uproar over sensible things. Have rights been taken away? Yes, that's fact, but to be honest given the security at airports September 11 was inevitable. Now they may have gone too far in their security, not being allowed to see passengers off springs to mind, but there are not armed soldiers at airports the way there are in places such as Thailand. Not yet anyway, and I would like to think things do not reach that stage.

Bush the most hated and evil president in history? C'mon now. If you're talking body count you've got far more evil presidents. Harry Truman and the A-bomb, any of the presidents that served during the Vietnam war (responsible for far more deaths than Bush during Iraq/Afgahnistan), Nixon for Vietnam AND corruption. Nixon was severally hated. Of course lots of presidents have been hated. President Grant himself was respected but his administration was one of the most corrupt in history, at least according to the textbooks on the period. The administrations during WW1 and WW2 arguably were responsible for more "evil" than Bush's. Of course people usually excuse that because of their "courageous leadership" during a time of war, etc. Lincoln trampled on a lot of civil liberties and had the whole Civil War thing going plus he was hated enough to be assasinated. So if you're going to say that Bush was the most hated or "most evil" you're going to have to do better than that! I'm certainly no Bush supporter, but seriously.

I think that Lincoln was arguably the most hated President in history - between suspending habeas corpus and freeing the slaves, he definitely wasn't well liked...they just didn't have a Hitler to compare him to yet.

I think the Bush hate is overblown as well, but the simple fact is Presidents Truman and Grant are not attacked, criticised and people wish death on half as much as Bush. Lincoln is considered a hero by many, something you could probably not say about Bush. Nixon would be a rival to the unpopularity and hatred that Bush has, but I have not seen comparisons to Hitler and Palpatine the way I have with Bush, and that's why I think the world hates Bush more than any other President.

No, I don't think clones. :roll1: I see what you are saying in trying to keep people thinking about all of these threats, such as keeping the world afraid of Bin Laden. However as we all know that threat is very real even without going into the terrorist acts they carry out (their drug trafficing for example, and people get the idea that Muslims are terrorists because of the actions of groups such as Al Qaeda).

The clones one just came to me on the spur of the moment. I quite liked it ;)

I'm sure that if you looked in to fear levels vs threat levels then terrorism must be about the most overblown panic there is. (except possibly pedophiles).

Sure its a risk... but in comparison to all the other daily risks we face its a tiny one. You must be thousands of times more likely to be killed by a car, or junk food, or whatever than you are by terrorism. I'd suspect you are far more likely to be killed by a meteorite to the head, or a toaster than you are by terrorism.. but its the thing that people are most afraid of, its used to justify billions of dollars in spending, etc...

I suspect that if the US had spent all the money and effort its spent on the war on terror on "free smoke alarms for everyone" then maybe 100 more people might have died from terrorist attacks... but thousands of people might have been saved from dying of fires/smoke. Its all about proportion.
-

Bush = most evil/hated president ever? No - thats Rumsfeld. ;)

You'll get no arguement from me that there is an overreaction to pedophiles. The people who fight against it, who propose not being allowed to take photos of your children, to play with your children, are nutters. I know, I've seen them in action.

I can see your point in terms of how all homes could be fitted with smoke alarms rather than the expenture there had been and would be on the war against terrorism. I'm pretty sure some cities do that. The reason that there may be all of this action taking place against terrorism is because at the time it begun it was popular, and now the ball's rolling and nobody could stop it. But maybe Bush could find some way to fund what is probably a more worthwhile project than continuing to what has become an unpopular war.

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/MissionPriorities-X.gif)

If Bush is meant to be Hitler I'd hate to think who Rumsfeld is meant to be.