# Criticism of World Leaders



## Alxmrphi

This is a different question, and I'm not being caught out by being "off-topic" so I am making a new thread..

Based on this quote:



> "If there's any criticism of President Bush, it should be restricted to Americans, whether they voted for him or not," Rangel said at a Washington news conference.
> 
> "I just want to make it abundantly clear to Hugo Chavez or any other president: Don't come to the United States and think, because we have problems with our president, that any foreigner can come to our country and not think that Americans do not feel offended when you offend our chief of state," Rangel said.



There are a lot of people who say that ONLY Americans have the right to critisise bush, not any Iraqies or Afghan's, not any Brits for calling our troops to death, nobody...

Nobody who cares about the environment and hate GWB's way of not cutting carbon emissions.

The fact that, I can't believe I would call a democrat stupid, but in this case I HAVE to (Rangel) ... This STUPID democrat... how DARE she tell us not to critisise someone who has such a MASSIVE impact on how the world works, just because he isn't our (THANK F'IN GOD!) president.

Does anybody else have an opinion on:

a) The issue I mentioned
b) Any "general" comment on if someone (anyone) has the right to critisise any other world leader.


----------



## Fernando

Anyone has the right to criticise whatsoever. I would advise some care, though.

When I hear opinions about Spanish politics from abroad, even if in "serious" newspapers, I am ashamed of noticing:

- They do not know nothing about Spain.
- They have ONE source (possibly, one Spaniard who tells them "his impartial, insight view".
- They "project" on other countries the situation of his. (I am a leftie= Zapatero is perfect, a rightist, Zapatero is the devil).

I assume is the same for Bush.
- They


----------



## Alxmrphi

But a distinction would surely have to be drawn between Spanish politics and American politics, if I am abroad and I hear people talking about Britain and its politics, I would feel sort of "uhh, stop it, you don't know it all!" but by no way should they not have the right to critisise! The whole world knows what America does, and I can't wait for that to change, and then some Americans think it is only them that care about it, and think we foreigners don't have that same right.


----------



## Fernando

No, I do not see any difference. In the case of US you have a point: US is bigger and more powerful in every sense than Spain and they influence my lifer far more than Spanish politics affect the common US citizen.

That would allow you to opine on US FOREIGN policy. Since US has not "invaded" Britain since 1945, when you talk about US foreign policy, you are commenting, probably on what US is doing in OTHER COUNTRIES which are not UK neither US. So you are saying:

- You know something about US politics.
- You know something about, say, Lebanon.
- You know something about Israel, Syria, the Shia, etc.

But, as said before, everybody is free to think and talk about everybody. I do not mind when people talks about Spain. I thank the attention they pay to my country. I only ask some care.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Do you think her comments were unreasonable? This is the answer I am looking for (please no sympathy "I can see where she is coming from" answer)

I mean if you were you, with no comparison and no national identity, like an alien with your views watching the world, in reality, is she right for saying what she said?


----------



## GenJen54

Alex_Murphy said:
			
		

> and think we foreigners don't have that same right.


You do have that same right, just as much as *you have the right to keep your $*$&^%$)#* mouths shut*, or at least keep your views known to your fellow compatriots, and not vent them on a board shared by countless Americans, oops, I meant "Unitedstatesians."

Personally, from an American perspective, I get tired, tired, tired, tired, tired hearing all of the bitching, moaning, screaming, complainig and otherwise just general "The U.S. this...." and "The U.S. that...." that gets spewed from right to left, or left to right, as the case may be.

So, we have a screwhead for a President? I CANNOT HELP IT. I didn't vote for the guy, 54,000,000 "W"-minded idiots did. In many instances on these boards, you are preaching to the choir. 

Does U.S. policy affect global politics more than the policies of other countries? Yes. But so what? Move on. Next topic, _please_. 

I think many people seem to have a sense of "entitlement" about being able to insult the U.S. for whatever reason they choose simply because of where the U.S. stands globally.

Go pick on your own policies and villify your own leaders for agreeing with mine, before you start spewing anew!

These people tend to forget that there are actually *people* living in this country, and some of those people are as tired of the situation as people living outside of this country. Just because *you have the right* to exercise your freedom of speech *does not mean that you should*.

There! How's that for honesty.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Perfectly fine for honesty though flawed to my eyes.
Who critisised America? Even Hugo Chavez said the American people are his friends, it's just that stupid administration, and besides all the stupid fat obese redneck evangelicals.. I agree with him.



> So, we have a screwhead for a President? I CANNOT HELP IT. I didn't vote for the guy, 54,000,000 "W"-minded idiots did. In many instances on these boards, you are preaching to the choir.


Don't take it so personally! I'm not saying you can help it, who did? Your drawing a lot of my words into something I didn't say, frankly it has absolutely nothing to do with you.

I understand that you hate the critisism that America gets, I really do, but that doesn't mean your government doesn't deserve it, and if you don't like me talking about it, sorry but I'm not going to stop.

I DESPISE Tony Blair like every other member of my family, and feel ashamed for being so Happy back in 1997.



> Just because *you have the right* to exercise your freedom of speech *does not mean that you should*.


Ok, can't argue with that............or can I?


----------



## Fernando

OK, Alex, then tell us which of your past leaders you like:

- Margaret Thatcher
- John Major
- Tony Blair

Do you really think that your level is far greater than US'?

By the way, I am ready to make a change: Any of them in exchange of Zapatero.


----------



## ElaineG

By the way, Alex, unless Charlie Rangel has had a little-publicized operation in recent days, he is now, and has always been, a he.

Frankly, I thought Chavez looked like a cheap stand-up comedian crossing himself and raving about the smell of sulfur.

Also, the word is spelled: criti_c_ism.  I'm going to change the title now.


----------



## Alxmrphi

If you don't mind me asking what did you think of Tim Ryan's go at bush? (here) Is it ok because he is American?


----------



## cubaMania

I do believe that Hugo Chavez' criticism of Bush would be more powerful and effective if it were presented in a more serious political manner. But that does not mean he has no right to criticize Bush. I really think it is only the manner and language--calling Bush a devil and talking about the smell of sulfur--that caused this reaction in Rep. Charles Rangel and some other politicians. Most politicians are more accustomed to phrasing their criticisms in polite language. When they do not, it is either a mistake, or they have some political constituency they are deliberately playing to. And Chavez is not the only one to throw around incendiary terms. Bush calls several countries "the axis of evil" which is hardly politic language.

Of course Chavez has the right to criticize Bush. Rep. Charles Rangel, by the way, openly criticizes the Bush administration for attempting to interfere with Chavez' democratically elected government, so it is pretty clear it is only the language and style that set him off. Here's a quote:


> Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., charged that the Bush administration helped oust Haiti’s President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, and that it is trying to depose Chávez, as well. “We’re doing the same thing in Venezuela because we don’t like Chávez,” Rangel said on a radio roundtable discussion.


 
EDIT:  P.S.  I also theorize that Rangel felt that politically it was necessary for him to distance himself from Chavez' over-the-top language for the very reason that Rangel is normally in opposition to Bush policies.  He needs to walk a fine line opposing Bush policies while still not appearing to support Communism in the form of this particular politician whose language will raise resentment among Americans.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Ok, I see the point about why Rangel might have got upset, but the problem I have is with what he actually said, which isn't down to "what set him off" it was the opinions expressed "he doesn't have a right to do that".

Maybe Oprah _should_ run.. hmm, lol.


----------



## cubaMania

Yes, what he actually said, (that only Americans can criticize Bush) as you point out, is clearly wrong Alex, but politicians are politicians.  We expect this from them.


----------



## Alxmrphi

cubaMania said:


> Yes, what he actually said, (that only Americans can criticize Bush) as you point out, is clearly wrong Alex, but politicians are politicians. We expect this from them.



An un-arguable comment!


----------



## maxiogee

I would confine my comments (of whatever degree of praise or complaint) on any other country's leadership to things which affect me directly. 
Do I care what policy of President X has on water-quality in her own country? Not a jot!
Do I have a right to say that King Y ought to tell his ministers to treat the ABC minority differently? Probably not.
Ought I speak out when President Z uses Irish airport facilities for the "extraordinary rendition" of prisoners? Too feckin' right!


----------



## Alxmrphi

How does the last one "affect you directly" because it is something to do with your country? I thought you meant to do with something that directly affects _you_. I wasn't sure.


----------



## PedroAznar

Hold on, this guy starts invading countries, spying on people and proping up corrupt regimes but suddenly we lose the right to criticize him because we're not Americans?

Chavez went over the top but that dosen't detract from the fact that he can say (within reason) whatever he wants about Bush or any other American leader.


----------



## maxiogee

Alex_Murphy said:


> How does the last one "affect you directly" because it is something to do with your country? I thought you meant to do with something that directly affects _you_. I wasn't sure.



Any infringement of Ireland's neutrality affects the (generally highly positive) way in which the Irish are perceived abroad. It demeans me in the 'courtp of world opinion. It interferes with our country's army's ability to act as an unbaised UN peace-keeping force in the eyes of those whose disputes it might be sent to oversee - and could olead to those units being seen by some as "legitimate targets". This would directly affect me.


----------



## Alxmrphi

That makes sense, are you are any one of your family in the Irish army?


----------



## Mariaguadalupe

Remember there are always two sides to the story.  Regarding Chavez' criticism of Bush, ....talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

And about Chavez being "freely" elected, there have been several threads discussing how he was elected but then how he has refused to step down even though the majority want him out of office.


----------



## maxiogee

Alex_Murphy said:


> are you are any one of your family in the Irish army?


----------



## Heba

I remember that Maradonna once said that he thought that  people around the world should vote in the American presedintial elections.

Perhaps because we feel that Bush is in control of us all, we sometimes criticize him as we criticize our leaders.

I do not see Bush as representative of Americans at large (not even of those who re-elected him. I have heard that Americans never change their president at the time of war; plus, the other guy-Kerry- was not convincing at all, sometimes it seemed that he did not understand what he was saying). Generally, I do not think that any president is representative of the people he or she rules.


----------



## Alxmrphi

That's why the war was started, to keep him in office (my honest deep sincere true belief) - that among many other things that would "better" America like Haleburton etc.

As for Maradonna, I am glad that someone who would be listened to has the right idea.


----------



## LV4-26

Alex_Murphy said:


> (please no sympathy "I can see where she is coming from" answer)


But that's the whole issue, on the contrary.
The answer to your question is so obvious, even to Charlie Rangel when he takes the time to think it over : yes, anyone has the right to criticize any world leader. 
Just as anyone has the right to answer "you're wrong" or "you're badly informed" or "until you've got your facts straight you should mind your own business", or "calling someone "_a devil_" is not very constructive as far as political criticism is concerned" (but that's maybe because I don't believe in the Devil).

Having said that, I think I should add that I side with the majority of Americans (I mean those who were around 68% in late April).


----------



## heidita

GenJen54 said:


> I think many people seem to have a sense of "entitlement" about being able to insult ...
> 
> These people tend to forget that there are actually *people* living in this country,


 
Yes, very tired indeed. But don't people always do? Criticise without thinking to sweep their own back yard first? 
Only very recently* I* was reminded in another thread "remember Goebbels doing ..." just because I am German.

Jesus Christ! It is tiring, though there is a very wise saying here in Spain: No insulta quien quiere sino quien puede. It needs two to be insulted, one who_ tries_ to insult and the other one to _take _the insult. I choose not to, nevertheless, I sometimes get tired , I must admit.


----------



## Outsider

I'm torn. Like *Maxiogee*, I don't think that Americans can dismiss criticism of their country with a "Mind your own business" until they start minding their own international business, too.
On the other hand, like *GenJen*, I think that criticizing the U.S. in these forums _is_ very likely preaching to the choir (if at times irresistible). The Americans who are likely to post here are interested in foreign languages and cultures, may travel abroad, are probably well educated... not your typical Bush-supporting American citizen, I imagine.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Outsider said:


> I'm torn. Like *Maxiogee*, I don't think that Americans can dismiss criticism of their country with a "Mind your own business" until they start minding their own international business, too.
> On the other hand, like *GenJen*, I think that criticizing the U.S. in these forums _is_ very likely preaching to the choir (if at times irresistible). The Americans who are likely to post here are interested in foreign languages and cultures, may travel abroad, are probably well educated... not your typical Bush-supporting American citizen, I imagine.



I didn't think of that, but it makes perfect sense, the urge is still too great though


----------



## LV4-26

I.


Outsider said:


> On the other hand, like *GenJen*, I think that criticizing the U.S. in these forums _is_ very likely preaching to the choir (if at times irresistible). The Americans who are likely to post here are interested in foreign languages and cultures, may travel abroad, are probably well educated... not your typical Bush-supporting American citizen, I imagine.


There were two different angles in GenJen's post


> "The U.S. this...." and "The U.S. that....





> you are preaching to the choir.


Quote #1 seems to address criticism of the US as a nation
Quote #2 seems to address criticism of its current president.
This confusion is an issue that has been repeatedly at stake in previous threads, many of which would have deserved GJ and Heidita's rant, the usual scenario often being :
1. "The US this or that........." 
2. Bitter justified response from an American (or non-American) forer@ 
3. "Of course, you understood that I meant Bush, not the US".

Let's be fair to Alex : he made it clear from the start that the issue was "criticism of world *leaders*"


----------



## LV4-26

II.
I'd say that Mr Rangel's problem is more or less the same as Cyrano's :
_Je me les sers moi-même avec assez de verve
Mais je ne permets pas qu'un autre me les serve
(Cyrano de Bergerac - _Edmond Rostand) 

"free" (but conveying the idea) English translation found here :
I take them from myself all in good part,
But not from any other man that breathes!

Curiously, the fact that Rangel addresses bashing of his president, while Cyrano
addresses bashing of himself, only slightly changes the issue.

And, mind you, I'm sure we're all a bit like Cyrano. Are we a bit like Rangel as well? I'll let each of you answer in the secret of his soul.


----------



## cuchuflete

Alex_Murphy said:


> Ok, I see the point about why Rangel might have got upset, but the problem I have *is with what he actually said*, which isn't down to "what set him off" it was the opinions expressed "he doesn't have a right to do that".



This thread, or most of it, has been about the thread title, which does not reflect accurately *what he actually said*.

From the quotation in post #1:

"Don't come to the United States and think, because we have problems with our president, that any foreigner can come to our country and not think that Americans do not feel offended when you offend our chief of state," Rangel said."

I don't take this as Rangel objecting to Chavez, or anyone else, criticizing Bush.  He was very pointedly remarking on Chavez having crapped on a US president while in the US.

Can people from country X criticize the leader of country Y?
Of course, without reservation, at any time and place.  If their criticisms are well-founded in fact, the people of country Y might actually benefit.

I try, through the filter of emotions that most people have about their own country, to focus on the facts.  Here are some of the things I consider:

1- I don't care for Bush and his policies, domestic or international.  That's putting it very mildly.

2-Chavez was a key player in a failed 1992 coup attempt.  While his target was a corrupt president, and he had a lot (roughly half the populaton of his country) of popular support, he bypassed electoral change in favor of an attempt at a military takeover.   He and Bush seem to share some authoritarian points of style!  

3- The mutual name-calling by these two individuals is about what I would expect.  No surprises.  I take it all for what it's worth, which is very little.  I am not any more offended by one than by the other.  It's theatre, it's petty, and unfortunately it's effective among their respective supporters. 

Now, back to Rangel's comments.... just suppose that the president of Brazil were to go to Poland, and while there for an international conference, were to call the head of the Polish government a devil.   Would the people of Poland, including those in opposition to the government, likely feel incensed?  If the head of government in France says something strongly critical of the head of government in Japan, but does so in Paris, the reaction is apt to be a lot less forceful.

I don't mind valid, factual criticism of the government of my country.  I don't care who does it, or where they come from.
I see lots of that in these forums, and I am more encouraged than bothered by it. Sometimes it agrees with what I think, and at others I learn new things to consider.  

I also see some very uninformed, emotional ranting.  It's annoying.  I don't bother trying to rebut it with facts, as it is quite obvious that facts would have little impact on those who ignored them in the first place.  It would be even more aggravating to present the facts, only to have them dismissed by those who choose to ignore whatever doesn't suit their simplistic crusades.


----------



## Alxmrphi

As much as it isn't "really", but technically the U.N building doesn't belong to America, and it's in a place that represents something that isn't America, so I see it a bit different. Though logically I see your point, I think the U.N headquarters should be in Switzerland.


----------



## ireney

Switzerland? Why would that make more sense? Just because they didn't take part in world wars?


----------



## maxiogee

No, because they are the original neutral and non-aligned country.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Exactly! Does it not make sense to anyone else that it'd be better there?


----------



## ireney

It'll take us far off topic if I reply to that. Anyway, unless Cavez materialised in the UN building he did go to the US.


----------



## Outsider

But he did not make the offending speech in the U.S., technically (just as you are not in Italy if you go to the Vatican). So, technically, he was not abusing hospitality.


----------



## Alxmrphi

I'm sure if he could materialise there he would do.


----------



## ireney

Oh c'mon you guys! So, if the Greek ambassador said something of the kind in the Greek embassy located in your country for your president/PM it would be OK since the embassy is Greek soil? Or would it be different just because an ambassador is supposed to be a diplomat?


----------



## Alxmrphi

It's not about geographical location it's about the principal of what the place represents.


----------



## Outsider

It was not in an embassy, and Chávez is not an embassador of Venezuela.
Still, of course it was not O.K. with the U.S. Hence Rangel's criticism, and the general dismay at Chávez's words.


----------



## cuchuflete

Alex_Murphy said:


> As for Maradonna, I am glad that someone who would be listened to has the right idea.



When we get done moving the UN to Geneva or Zurich, and debunking the notion that Switzerland is really "non-alligned", we can investigate why a figure of Maradonna's stature and habits (!!!) should be listened to.  

Back towards the thread topic... Politicians are free to make stupid as well as sagacious remarks in public.  It really doesn't do much except to confirm the prejudices of both their supporters and their opponents.

I have no doubts that Fidel was delighted to learn of Chavez's remarks, and probably wishes he had made them first. Back in the day, when Nikita Kruschev banged his shoe on a lectern at the UN, his supporters were doubtless in ecstasy, while his enemies took it as further proof that he was a dangerous rustic idiot.  

Politicial leadership on national levels has sunk to the level of soap opera entertainment.  What's most sad is that some people take it seriously.  Some countries even put second rate actors into positions of political power.  That's about as bad as electing monopolists or political hacks who went to the "right" schools.  

I wonder how many Italians would feel offended if someone were to point out that about half the voters in Italy tried, despite repeated evidence that the man has no respect for law, to re-elect a jackass.  Blair is still in office.  What does that tell us about the intelligence of the average British voter?
Bush, having lost the first election that put him in office, gathered a majority in the next election.  Americans are no brighter than the British or Italian voters.  (And, based on recent history, the reverse is true.)  We could go on, country by country, until everyone is annoyed.  Who will speak up from outside of France to tell us how effective Chirac has been?

Politicians are public figures, and just like sports stars and TV actors, they are fair targets for public comment.  Such comments are usually partisan, motivated by a desire to hold or obtain power, or to push an ideology.   Whether the commentator shares the same nationality or not doesn't matter very much, if at all.


----------



## Gianna_7

As one of the few "United Staters" (joke from previous thread) to respond, I agree with Heidita that it is very tiring to feel continual criticism of your country.  However, criticism is obviously important to understanding reality and participating in a global society.  It is also an individual right.  

I only wish I had a better solution and no, I don't believe Bush represents the majority.  I'm rather depressed by the whole situation and within my social circle we often talk about where we could immigrate....New Zealand?  I don't think they'd have me.  I fear for the future with kings such as Bush in power.  

I do think the next round of elections this November will be interesting and hope at least for some modest changes.  The New York times online has an article today, _Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat, _but then again, the New York times is probably preaching to the choir.


----------



## Alxmrphi

When we elected Blair he was a good guy, it was not a dumb decision at all, it's what he turned into, as for the next election, Kennedy wouldn't have got in and anyone with a braincell wouldn't have voted for Howard.

As for Maradonna, he is famous, people listen to what famous people have to say, I don't think there is anything about him that "should" be listened to, it's just he would have an audience.



Gianna_7 said:


> As one of the few "United Staters" (joke from previous thread) to respond, I agree with Heidita that it is very tiring to feel continual criticism of your country. However, criticism is obviously important to understanding reality and participating in a global society. It is also an individual right.
> 
> I only wish I had a better solution and no, I don't believe Bush represents the majority. I'm rather depressed by the whole situation and within my social circle we often talk about where we could immigrate....New Zealand? I don't think they'd have me. I fear for the future with kings such as Bush in power.
> 
> I do think the next round of elections this November will be interesting and hope at least for some modest changes. The New York times online has an article today, _Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat, _but then again, the New York times is probably preaching to the choir.


 
 Was it the New York times who sat on that piece of news for a while and released it on the day of a Senate meeting about a bill and because of the article the bill failed?


----------



## don maico

well its perfectly reasonable to criticize policies( free speach) I dont feel it is right to attack a person just because he happens to be president like:
www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny15_rangel/CBRStatementChavezUNspeech09212006.html
has been aluding to

Attack the policies but not the man unless he happens to be some psycho nazi which Bush clearly isnt.Politics should never get personal in my view and if you attack Bush in a sense you are attacking the US in general. If I hear foreigners having a go at Blair my instinct is to defend him for we elected him and he represents us.


----------



## Alxmrphi

> in my view and if you attack Bush in a sense you are attacking the US in general.



Sorry, but I have never disagreed more with anything in my entire life.


----------



## LV4-26

> and if you attack Bush in a sense you are attacking the US in general. If I hear foreigners having a go at Blair my *instinct* is to defend him for we elected him and he represents us.


Here we are! I was beginning to wonder whether that attitude I had tried to describe didn't exist.


----------



## don maico

Alex_Murphy said:


> Sorry, but I have never disagreed more with anything in my entire life.



No need to apologise old bean . free speach and all that, what, what! 
As Tony Benn once said himself - politics should never be about personalities. George Bush is an American elected by his own people rightly or wrongly. As such he represents them.Attack HIM and you ARE attacking them up to a point. Attack his policies and you are merely doing what we all have the right to do because as has been mentioned US policies affect us all. I feel free to criticize not only some of their international policies but some of their domestic ones as well  like gunownership and the lack of a state funded health care system.


----------



## cuchuflete

don maico said:


> As Tony Benn once said himself - politics should never be about personalities. George Bush is an American elected by his own people rightly or wrongly. As such he represents them.Attack HIM and you ARE attacking them up to a point. Attack his policies and you are merely doing what we all have the right to do because as has been mentioned US policies affect us all. I feel free to criticize not only some of their international policies but some of their domestic ones as well  like gunownership and the lack of a state funded health care system.



Tony Benn?  That parlour pink sorry excuse for a leftist?  Harrumph!  

Bueno Don Maico, 
I accept your gracious offer....attack his policies and you are merely doing what we all have the right to do...

Blair stinks!  His policy of supporting Bush is hurting my country, and leading to the death of Iraqis and Americans alike.   If he had either the balls or the brains to publicly repudiate Bush, and withdraw your country's support for same, he would have a beneficial effect on the entire world, including my country.   I don't give a flying fig that he used to be, as one of your countrymen has stated, a good guy.  He supports bad policy, which is felt beyond British borders.

Now, seriously, do you take a single word of that as an attack against any single citizen of the UK except Blair himself?  If you do, you should remove the bandera of Maradonnaland from your avatar, and replace it with a Union Jack, dripping with tears and blood.  Then we could both go to UN headquarters in Geneva or Zürich or NYC and throw spitballs at one another, proudly proclaiming, "My leader is awful, and so is yours!".


----------



## Alxmrphi

Tony Benn is great! Barring that, that was one of the most entertaining posts I have ever read!


----------



## la reine victoria

> If I hear foreigners having a go at Blair my instinct is to defend him for we elected him and he represents us.


 

What a load of old cobblers Don Maico!  Due to voter apathy, Blair was elected, in 2005, by only 35.2% of the population.  64.8% of us didn't want him returned to office.

I have never been a supporter of Blair and am always delighted to hear people (quite rightly) "having a go" at him, regardless of whether they are Brits or foreigners.  *Never* would I jump to his defence. 






LRV


----------



## don maico

la reine victoria said:


> What a load of old cobblers Don Maico!  Due to voter apathy, Blair was elected, in 2005, by only 35.2% of the population.  64.8% of us didn't want him returned to office.
> 
> I have never been a supporter of Blair and am always delighted to hear people (quite rightly) "having a go" at him, regardless of whether they are Brits or foreigners.  *Never* would I jump to his defence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LRV


maybe you wouldnt but I certainly would. He is by FAR the best person to lead this country having stature ,gravitas and politixal acumen that others couldnt even begin to emulate , certainly not Cameron anyway who sweems to jump from one photoshoot/ soundbite to another and has no policies whatsoever.Menzies Campbell may wel surprise us though, I'll wait and see.
As for you firgures the same could be said for Thatcher - she was only voted by a minority.Maybe we should have a hung parlaiment
I fully understannd why people choose to attack an individual being as they dislike the party they lead, the fact they are premiers/ presidents or the policies they implement. My arguement is that would one should reserve ones anger for those policies and not make cheap personal attacks. Peoplle make far too any judgements based oin the superficial " nice Mr Cameron", "I dont like Blair he seems shifty" etc. Utter rubbish.
Anyway i dont believe constantly attacking Bush achieves anything other than completely pissoff our Americn allies. I dislike his policies but have no beef against him at all . Same with Clinton who was attacked by many in his country but I thought was a reasonable bloke .


----------



## don maico

cuchuflete said:


> Tony Benn?  That parlour pink sorry excuse for a leftist?  Harrumph!
> 
> Bueno Don Maico,
> I accept your gracious offer....attack his policies and you are merely doing what we all have the right to do...
> 
> Blair stinks!  His policy of supporting Bush is hurting my country, and leading to the death of Iraqis and Americans alike.   If he had either the balls or the brains to publicly repudiate Bush, and withdraw your country's support for same, he would have a beneficial effect on the entire world, including my country.   I don't give a flying fig that he used to be, as one of your countrymen has stated, a good guy.  He supports bad policy, which is felt beyond British borders.
> 
> Now, seriously, do you take a single word of that as an attack against any single citizen of the UK except Blair himself?  If you do, you should remove the bandera of Maradonnaland from your avatar, and replace it with a Union Jack, dripping with tears and blood.  Then we could both go to UN headquarters in Geneva or Zürich or NYC and throw spitballs at one another, proudly proclaiming, "My leader is awful, and so is yours!".



Nope I dont think for one moment think he stinks.My guess is his personal hygene is a of a very good order. He acted on inteligence which was  flawed but assuming it hadnt been and he and and Bush hadnt acted what then?Hindsight is a wonderul thing isnt?. Anway Iraq hopefully will act as democratic template for the whole region in years to come.Another thing I never bought into this Blair is Bush's poodle drivel as he is very much his own man. In fact I think he encouraged Bush to get stuck in Iraq.Poodle?? Nah!

Btw T Benn has always been very critical of Blair , not of him as a person but of his record as PM. The man enjoys enormous respect across the land not only because he is bright but also because he is principilled and is a a very good speaker.even today he attracts considerable crowds who like listening to him. The man is a true gentleman who would never lower himself by indulging in personal fueds with anyone.
He has also often been critical of American foreign policy particulalry its various military adventures,but he is no anti American( his wife was one after all)


----------



## Fernando

I am a bit confused about the last posts since I do not know nothing about Mr. Benn (that is why I do not like to give opinions about British politics).

But, even after having a weekend to think about, do some foreros still think that Chávez and Maradona (one "n", please) are the ideal etiquette standard for future UN discussions?

For the Switzerland-UN-seat movement, maybe they should know that, after this weekend, some States ambassadors could have problems to enter in the country.


----------



## la reine victoria

don maico said:


> maybe you wouldnt but I certainly would. He is by FAR the best person to lead this country having stature ,gravitas and politixal acumen that others couldnt even begin to emulate , certainly not Cameron anyway who sweems to jump from one photoshoot/ soundbite to another and has no policies whatsoever.Menzies Campbell may wel surprise us though, I'll wait and see.
> As for you firgures the same could be said for Thatcher - she was only voted by a minority.Maybe we should have a hung parlaiment
> I fully understannd why people choose to attack an individual being as they dislike the party they lead, the fact they are premiers/ presidents or the policies they implement. My arguement is that would one should reserve ones anger for those policies and not make cheap personal attacks. Peoplle make far too any judgements based oin the superficial " nice Mr Cameron", "I dont like Blair he seems shifty" etc. Utter rubbish.
> Anyway i dont believe constantly attacking Bush achieves anything other than completely pissoff our Americn allies. I dislike his policies but have no beef against him at all . Same with Clinton who was attacked by many in his country but I thought was a reasonable bloke .


 


I'll start with Margaret Thatcher.  The 1987 General Election had a turnout of 75.3% from which MT gained 42.2% of the votes - hardly a minority victory.  

Menzies Campbell may well, indeed, surprise us - by announcing that he is stepping down as leader of the Liberal Democrats.  He is even more feeble than Charles Kennedy - God help him in his battle with alcoholism (that is my sincere prayer since I have personal experience of my late husband's 17 years of suffering with this terrible illness).  I think the Lib Dems should disband - they will never gain overall power.

Cameron is an ill-chosen leader of the Conservatives but all the latest polls on "Who would you vote for if a General Election were held tomorrow?" indicate that the Conservatives would be back in power.  I feel that this would be a protest vote against a Labour Party led by Gordon Brown - another man for whom I have no time.

Getting back to Blair.  No matter how efficacious his deodorant, I agree with Cuchu that "he stinks".  I would even go so far as to say that he has blood on his hands.  Had he not aligned with Bush on the invasion of Iraq we would never have had a July 7, when 52 innocent people lost their lives and many others were seriously maimed.  Jean Charles de Menezes would still be alive.  

How you can endue Blair with the qualities of "stature, gravitas and political acumen" is beyond my comprehension.  He has had almost ten years in which to implement his 1997 election pledges but, in my view (and in that of many, many others) he has failed miserably.  Education, health, social services - all are in rapid decline.  Crime rates are rising, we have the highest rate of teenage pregnancies, abortions and STDs in Europe, drug taking by young people is on the increase.  I include alcohol as a drug since its abuse by youngsters is also rising - children have been known to arrive, drunk, at school in the morning.  Scanners are being introduced into schools to check for pupils carrying knives.

If you would like to become a Peer of the Realm, just send Blair a couple of million pounds and your wish will be granted.

Blair is a dyed-in-the-wool Tory, posing as someone fighting for equal rights for all.  Never has the gap between rich and poor been so great.

Political acumen?  Don't make me laugh!

George Bush?  I'm laughing!  





LRV


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Moderator note:

We seem to be in danger of losing our topic, which is not about the failings and shortcomings of our own leaders.

Do we have the right to critize the leaders of other countries?


----------



## Alxmrphi

I think this'd be a good poll question Chaska, is there any way you can add a poll to the beginning and we can see clearer results to the question, I can't edit the first post and change it now.

[Edit] - actually, I can and did.


----------



## don maico

Anyway its back to the topic. I remember  Bill Clinton a man I had a lot of time for and so do many both in the uk and in ireland.Probably the best president the Americans have had  since Kennedy and yet Kenneth Starr wasted $ 40.000.0oo trying to indict him. What on earth for? He presided over a pwriod of incredible growth did more thanm anyone to bring about the peace accord in NI nad committed his troops to resolving Kosovo question( admittedly he was prompted by our great Blair - the two remain firm friends). Yet many both here and in the US chose to slag the guy off.Gie the guy a break i say!


----------



## don maico

Fernando said:


> I am a bit confused about the last posts since I do not know nothing about Mr. Benn (that is why I do not like to give opinions about British politics).
> 
> But, even after having a weekend to think about, do some foreros still think that Chávez and Maradona (one "n", please) are the ideal etiquette standard for future UN discussions?
> 
> For the Switzerland-UN-seat movement, maybe they should know that, after this weekend, some States ambassadors could have problems to enter in the country.



good bloke ,Chavez. I like the cloth he is cut from


----------



## cuchuflete

don maico said:


> *Anyway its back to the topic.* I remember  Bill Clinton a man I had a lot of time for and so do many both in the uk and in ireland.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



Back to the topic?   Please help us understand how this relates to the thread topic?

Of course you have the right to criticize or embrace foreign leaders as you see fit.
What consequences do you expect when you do so?  How will you be perceived by the residents of a foreign nation if you utter you criticisms of their leaders while you are on their soil, or surrounded by it?


----------



## ElaineG

On the previous page of this thread, there was a lot of stuff about Chavez not technically being in the U.S. when he made his comments because he was at the U.N. building.

The day after the U.N. Speech, Chavez spoke at a church _in Harlem_ -- _in Charlie Rangel's Congressional District_-- and repeated the devil comment, as well as calling Bush a "sick man" and an "alcoholic."

Rangel specifically noted on his website that he felt the need to speak out because Chavez had associated himself with the Harlem community when making his remarks.

So, that whole "not in the U.S." is a non-issue....


----------



## cuchuflete

ElaineG said:
			
		

> The day after the U.N. Speech, Chavez spoke at a church _in Harlem_ -- _in Charlie Rangel's Congressional District_-- and repeated the devil comment, as well as calling Bush a "sick man" and an "alcoholic."



So here we have the gist of the question:

Chávez, non-US citizen, in the US, saying the same sorts of negative things about the US leader that many US citizens say.  Is this ok?  Why or why not?  What are the expected consequences of such behavior?

Let's make it even more pointed.  If Bush were to go to Venezuela, and call Chávez nasty names, how would the Venezuelan people respond?   Would Chávez's opponents celebrate in the streets?  Would his supporters feel indignant and throw eggs at the US embassy?  Would you personally consider this to be appropriate behavior by the US President, or do we have distinct standards for presidents of different countries?


----------



## Alxmrphi

cuchu said:
			
		

> or do we have distinct standards for presidents of different countries?


 
I can't help but admit this is a very very true statement



			
				Fernando said:
			
		

> For the Switzerland-UN-seat movement, maybe they should know that, after this weekend, some States ambassadors could have problems to enter in the country.


 
Are you talking about the Venezualan ambassador being searched as he tried to enter the U.S ?


----------



## Fernando

Alex_Murphy said:


> Are you talking about the Venezualan ambassador being searched as he tried to enter the U.S ?



Off topic. As you possibly know, US has apologized. Chávez has not yet.


----------



## don maico

cuchuflete said:


> Back to the topic?   Please help us understand how this relates to the thread topic?
> 
> Of course you have the right to criticize or embrace foreign leaders as you see fit.
> What consequences do you expect when you do so?  How will you be perceived by the residents of a foreign nation if you utter you criticisms of their leaders while you are on their soil, or surrounded by it?


Naturally I would be careful about what I said about those leaders -I am not stupid, but as I said I would not criticize them as individuals unless they happened to be crooks , villians or psychopaths. I would simply question their policies and if someone asked me what i thought I would tell them but in as diplomatic way as i could.I have told Americans what i thought of the  gun laws  or lack of state funded healthcare system on a number of occasions but always with a sense of respect. Americans who live here tell me about the things they dont like but I dont take offence although it would depend on how they say it of course.What I refuse to do is jump on the "we hate Bush/ Blair" bandwagon.You can insult my freely elected premeir by casting aspersions about his personal hygene but then I would ask you whether you are following the rule that you so assiduously impose on others about not being derisive about other people or countries.

seems that by the poll result so far I am in aminority postion of 1     Chortle


----------



## Yuribear

ireney said:


> Oh c'mon you guys! So, if the Greek ambassador said something of the kind in the Greek embassy located in your country for your president/PM it would be OK since the embassy is Greek soil? Or would it be different just because an ambassador is supposed to be a diplomat?



According to International Law, any Embassy located in a foreign country is considered as "national territory" of that Embassy. So if the Greek ambassador said anything... he would legally be in Greece, although as soon as he goes out of the Embassy, he would be in the US. In the case of the UN, that is considered as Neutral territory.



don maico said:


> Attack the policies but not the man unless he happens to be some psycho nazi...



I totally agree with you in that it is the actions or policies which should be attacked, not the person. Gandhi used to say that when you personalize the problem, you do not leave the door opened for your oponent to change his conduct but only to defend himself. Actually I was reading one of the two letters that MK Gandhi wrote to Hitler. They are both very respectful but strong against his policies... for instance, he writes...

"_your acts are monstrous and unbecoming of human dignity, especially in the estimation of people like me who believe in universal friendliness_." 
Vol.73, Dec. 24, 1940 from The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi

and then he continues to explain vastly the power of non violent non-cooperation (Satyagraha).

Finally... a quote on Nonviolence...

"Nonviolence magnifies one's own defects and minimizes those of the opponent. It regards the mote in one's own eye as a beam, and the beam in the opponent's eye as a mote."
MK Gandhi, Vol. 69, May 13, 1939

I believe we should be questioning ourselves about WHY are we allowing our own governments to follow the policies which we so much dislike.. and what are we doing about it?


----------



## LV4-26

Yuribear said:


> I totally agree with you in that it is the actions or policies which should be attacked, not the person.


I'd have a few things to say about that too, most of which in agreement with you. But I won't say them. I mean personal attacks are no more right or wrong whether they come from fellow citizens or foreigners (or does anyone think there's a difference?). Therefore, I believe I'd be off-topic.


----------



## cuchuflete

Another wrinkle on all of this-  If it is good or bad for a visitor to criticize a leader when on that leader's home turf (Which is what Mr. Rangel spoke about) then, what about praise?

If President Balderdash of the Republic of Blitheria visits
Hemperia, and says that it's President, Ms. Fumamucho, is doing a really good job, isn't that meddling in internal affairs?

Politicians of all stripes seem to love objecting to foreigners "meddling in our internal affairs". 

Isn't it just as good, or just as objectionable, to praise as to condemn?


----------



## Alxmrphi

Showing praise is sort of giving thanks and appriciating what a person is doing, I'd say it is a bit "expected" on a foreign trip. (For a world leader), Well, expected-ish. It's a nice curtosy. I don't think it's the same as criticism, but it's like being invited into someones house, you'd be nice.


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:


> Another wrinkle on all of this-  If it is good or bad for a visitor to criticize a leader when on that leader's home turf (Which is what Mr. Rangel spoke about) then, what about praise?
> 
> If President Balderdash of the Republic of Blitheria visits
> Hemperia, and says that it's President, Ms. Fumamucho, is doing a really good job, isn't that meddling in internal affairs?
> 
> Politicians of all stripes seem to love objecting to foreigners "meddling in our internal affairs".
> 
> Isn't it just as good, or just as objectionable, to praise as to condemn?



A semi-good point.
What would make it a fully-good point would be if people felt that the visitors actually meant any of the praise.

We call this sort of thing _plámás_ over here.
You know the sort of thing
"blah blah blah blah our two great nations blah blah blah blah this historic occasion blah blah blah blah your leader's tremendous foresight, courage and determination blah blah blah blah internationally acclaimed blah blah blah blah momentous decision blah blah blah blah makes me proud to blah blah blah blah 

You can probaly write your own multi-purpose speech.

--edit--
I wouldn't be surprised to find some memoir-writing civil servant reveal that Prime Minister X / President Y / Queen Z had used exactly the same speech on two different occasions.


----------



## don maico

cuchuflete said:


> Another wrinkle on all of this-  If it is good or bad for a visitor to criticize a leader when on that leader's home turf (Which is what Mr. Rangel spoke about) then, what about praise?
> 
> If President Balderdash of the Republic of Blitheria visits
> Hemperia, and says that it's President, Ms. Fumamucho, is doing a really good job, isn't that meddling in internal affairs?
> 
> Politicians of all stripes seem to love objecting to foreigners "meddling in our internal affairs".
> 
> Isn't it just as good, or just as objectionable, to praise as to condemn?



praise the actions


----------

