I'd pay more to see Mr. Bush assasinated. He is far more dangerous, and responsible for far more poor people staying poor and being abused than Chavvez or Castro.
But as always, it is not one man's fault really. Not just George, but most of the rich countries of the world from Europe to China.
Ash, this is one reason people need to travel the world more and really meet the locals. I know you went to Nepal, I think India.
My parent work in factories in the USA thinking the rich keep them poor. You keep your self poor in the USA, Bush has close to nothing to do with the economies of the world.
Chavez does, Che does, Castro does.
In the end the proof is the number of people trying to enter England your country and the number of people trying to leave.
USA people do not try to migrate in masss to other countries.
Venezuela people do, or would if they could.
Many people per year die in boats trying to leave Cuba.
I hope you never get wealthy, you may become the person or type of person you do not like.
The USA people could be very angry for what Bush is doing, he has helped to stop a mass murderer, I saw the graves of 2700 people Sadaam Killed.
100 years fron Tony Blair and George Bush will remembered as the person who stopped the likes of a Pol Pot or Hitler.
Anarchy is trendy word, and really not an adult Ash.
Go to work on the construction site, talk about one weatlhy person who you believe is a good person. Almost invariable the whole group will not be able to say anything good.
Because Rich is Bad, Poor is good, but they all go an ask for a raise and cry all the time.
You was an extremely rich person in Nepal, living from the good of your country. Try to tell a Nepal person you are poor or not a lucky person. The tend to think,
"How stupid can a man from England get?"
Most travelers do not appreciate their rich countries and the FREEDOM to just leave.
I have been to Venezuela, I do not think you have. I have been to Bolivia, I do not think you have.
Time to stop believing all rich people are bad.
The USA government is by the people, for the people.
I am not claiming to be poor, nor am I claiming that citizens of my country or yours are poor, this is obviously not the case.
My point is that it is the system of world trade that keeps countries like Cuba and Venezuala in such a poor state.
In Cuba's case, the only superpower in the world, and neighbour, the USA rrefused to allow trade with Cuba. You do not need to be a genius to work out how this could completely destroy a nation's economy. It would be much easier and cheaper to import and export goods via USA. I do not understand why a difference in ideology with the man at the top would cause a country to try and starve out a whole island of people. This is just cruel.
It is also the case that the big rich countries are the ones buying lots of the cocaine. If there was not the demand, there would not be the supply. Our governments know about the drugs trafficking, and if they wanted to the could stop it. For all their talk of a 'war on drugs' they are actually allowing this trade to go on. Why? because it benefits our economies.
So long as arrible land is being used to grow cash crops- including cocaine- these countriees need to import their food from us. We can pay them as little as we like for goods, because we know they need every penny and will not refuse us buisness- and if they do, then who else will buy from them?
So I'm not denying that Castro and Chavez are in charge of god-aweful places to live. I'm simply saying it is nowhere near as simple as you like to paint the picture. Chavez and Castro bad, Bush and Blair good. It just doesn't work that way- all these men are culpable. You say the USA government is for and by the people. They are for and by the USA people, and that isn't good enough in the contemporary world, where you live and trade globally.
I'm also not saying that the war on Iraq was a bad thing. Saddam Hussain was a murdering nut case, and far worse a man than blair or bush (or castro or chavez), and I am glad he is not in power. I do, however, object to 1) my country lying to me about their motives- I vote for the government, and I expect them to behave transparently. If they had said to me 'we're going in to remove a dictator' I'd have praised them for their compassion. 2) I object to the poor tactical decisions made,, that have ended up causing loss of life and a country that is just as unstable as before. Now the terrorists have more power in Iraq, and outside of the zones controlled by our boys, life has not gotten better for the Iraqis. That kind of blunder should not happen when we have the best military forces in the world.
I do not and have never proposed anarchy. I do, however, promote the kind of socialism that we have in modern, western european countries,, including in Britain. Thanks to McCarthy and lenin, I know that the word socialism causes many people to think of collumns of russian tanks advancing through the world. But really, it's just this: the economic praxis of capitalism, with some of the social ethics of communism mixed into it. It's capitalism with a human heart. I am not a communist, and I am certainly not an anarchist.
I do not think our elected leaders will be remembered as those who got rid of Hitler and Pol Pot. Partly because our countries did nothing to stop Pol Pot's rise to power, they were too busy next door in Korea trying to keep the commies out. Similarly, if we are so concerned about tyrants, why the hell is Mugabe still alive? I'd kill him myself if I had a chance.
Fair enough, it's great to be from a free and rich country being able to do what pleases one, and I truly appreciate this myself, making me able to leave my free and rich country and do what I want. I have been traveling to 30 countries on a 20-dollar-per-day budget and finally left my country for good.
But one can't deny that some (western) governments are spreading hatred around the world with their foreign policy. I think what happened 11 September 2001 was just a good lesson learned for the Americans. After all, only 3000 people died, but how many have died in Iraq as a result of the US led invasion there? Probably far more than would have been the case if Saddam was still in power. The US are just replacing something bad with something bad, but different. And this is not just some trendy opinion, it is just that people have different opinions.