Bush's speech

did anyone else watch this???? It makes me sick, it really, really does. This is probably one of the worst speeches I've ever seen. He really didn't stay on topic throughout the questioning, rather rambling on and on and on...I can see why he doesn't have a lot of these scheduled, he sucks at it! Plus his arguements are so weak and hypocritical. He doesn't respect the decisions of the UN! get real, half the UN doesn't respect the decisions of the UN. Ok, asking him to accept the blame for 9/11 is a little much, that was as much anyone's fault as it was his. But come on! don't use that to justify what you did in Iraq. we've heard it all before, Saddam was evil, he tourtured his people, used wmd agains his own people (like 12 years ago yet he's still banging that drum). ugh.......sry, i just can't stand to watch a president make an idiot of himself and the nation, i really cant.

sry, i'll burn the soapbox for now so you all don't have to listen to this again, i just wanted to vent to someone



Rock on...
Kevin

I wanna be with you forever, and tomorrows not too late...

"Beware the fury of a patient man" ~John Dryden

Are we opening up this can of worms again? Is it my turn now? Before I begin, I want to tell anyone who's going to come into this thread and say "Please stop fighting" or some such nonsensical thing to just not bother reading the thread at all, because it's not fighting.

I didn't see much of the speech because I was at work. Dubya isn't the best traditional speaker, not the best speaker in general at all, but I don't much care about whether he stumbles over a few words or mis-pronounces some commonly mis-pronounced words. From what I understand, it wasn't really a speech as much as it was a news conference, and presidents under both democratic and republican administrations have always skirted questions and given tried and true answers, so I don't much care about that, either.

Bill Clinton went against UN wishes when he intervened in Kosovo, stopping the genocide that was going on there. The UN passed over a dozen resolutions on Iraq that Iraq did not respond to. The UN is no law-enforcing body. I honestly think it's a bad idea executed poorly, anyway. It's just another political body with its own politcal agendas. I see no reason why the United States should have to cater to the wishes of a nation like Belgium or France when it comes to making its own decisions. Similarly, I don't think Belgium or France should be under the control of the United States. I want out of the UN. The US provides the most funding to it and the UN mismanages much of it. UN money given to Africa has done nothing to strengthen the continent; rather, dictators there are given extra luxuries that they don't have to afford to their people.

There are injustices in the world, and some of them are because of the United States. That I will admit and I want them corrected. I don't want the U.S. intervening in civil wars or uprisings in other countries because I don't care about them; I want the homefront taken care of. However, there are instances where intervention is necessary. Aside from the all-too cliched instance of Nazi Germany, the U.S. in the past did have to do something about the Soviet Union and successfully caused its collapse, not militarily but economically. And I don't want to hear anything about the U.S. creating Bin Laden. At the time, he was fighting off the Soviets in Afghanistan, a far bigger threat that was relevant to the U.S. Similarly, Saddam did receive U.S. support, but against Iran, a bigger threat. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Maybe just temporarily, but true none the less.

Regardless of injustices around the world, the United States did absolutely nothing that warranted the actions of 9/11, and I think every one can agree that those responsible need to be dealt with. I understand people think Bin Laden should have been rounded up and killed in three weeks, but that's unrealistic and is not how things work. The world isn't an instant-access drive-thru where all your demands are immediately met. Top commanders of Bin Laden's group have been captured or killed, so progress is being made whether it is blatantly obvious or not.

In regards to Iraq, I supported the war and I will not deny it. Under the supposition that the man still possessed those coined WMDs, and the fact that the UN promised retaliation over a dozen times, it had to be done. Was 9-11 an excuse? To a degree, yes, but it also woke people up to realize that threats have to be dealt with. I, personally, don't want five thousand more Americans to die before something is done, and for that reason I am for pre-emptive striking if it is based on reliable information. Questions are being raised now as to how reliable this information was, and justifiably, but Clinton believed this information to be true as well and was on the doorstep of war with Iraq in 1998, a war I believe still should have taken place regardless of partisan politics.

And speaking of partisan politics, they are what disgusts me. Because in the end, Bush's actions are going to be considered wrong by democrats regardless. If he goes to war he's wrong for it, and if he doesn't and something happens he'll be blamed for not acting. That's the way it goes and it goes that way on both the left and the right. Democrats lambasting the president now weren't lambasting the president in 1998 or when he went into Kosovo without UN approval.

Saddam was a horrible person and in the long-run Iraq will be better off without him if a free society is established (control is going to be transferred over on June 30th, by the way). What is also evident, and I hope it is to everyone, is that simply immediately pulling US troops out of Iraq will accomplish nothing. Whether you were for or against the war, what's done is done and it has to be seen through to the end now lest the nation spiral into an anarchy state from which another dictator will emerge.

There, I didn't even cuss.

-Mike





Go listen to my band. We're awesome.

http://www.myspace.com/rosencrantzny
weallgotwoodandnails

ahh, what the hell.....

See, my problem with the war isn't so much taking out Saddam, because he was obviously a threat to his own people (leaving the threat to America arguement out of this right now). But what I don't understand is why we are sending over troops by the thousands to make the Iraqi people happy. Not to offend anyone, but I don't really care, there are too many other things that need to be dealt with.

I'm not saying that I was necessarily for or against the war, i think it was badly mishandled. I think if Bush really wanted him out of power without going to war, he'dve bitched and moaned to the UN until they finally did something, rather than going into Iraq. It's not right to send our soldiers over on a mission that was a political mess from the beginning. Plus the way it was publicized, "American soldiers are victorious over Iraqi army!" did anyone really expect the Iraqi army to win? I mean really? It's just putting a good spin on a nasty issue. And now that we're in Iraq it's not like we'll be pulling out anytime soon, we simply can't. That would be irresponsible of us and would not be acceptable under any terms.

My problem with Bush's administration is that they pick their fights blindedly. This Iraq thing should have been dealt with, but they really went all in without a plan, and now they are suprised when they are paying for it. Don't get me started on his "Screw You" eviromental plan (sry, i'm a bit of a treehugger I guess, spare me of the comments, eh?). Ok, no administration is perfect right, I'll give him that, but I still disagree strongly with the course that he has taken.

With regards to the UN, i woudn't be unhappy to see it go. I know that countries such as France would be happy to see it go, they have been trying for the past decade or so to make Europe more independent from America. Hell, if they could match our weapons technology they'd be out before you could say, "oo la la" (excuse my French). The fact is that we are too far ahead, really. Similarly, the US has a big enough military budget, almost 1/3 of it going to our Allies to help them develope their technology to be up to par with ours. It's nauseating when you think about how much we spend on our military.

My only comment to politics is that it's the most hypocritical and backstabbing concept yet established by man. I'll vote you into office to screw me over because that's how you'll be re-elected? whatever man.....



Rock on...
Kevin

I wanna be with you forever, and tomorrows not too late...

"Beware the fury of a patient man" ~John Dryden

I don't think the fight was picked blindly. And as far as a plan, the main war itself was done within weeks. It took YEARS to rebuild Nazi Germany. People can't expect Iraq to be a bustling democracy in a few months. Things take time, and, once again, power is beig handed over at the end of June.

I'm not big on the environment, to be honest, and I want Alaska drilled dry so there's less dependency on the Middle East (that's why we bought Alaska in the first place, damn it, for the oil).

I think there are more important things than the welfare of the Iraqi people, as well. I, for one, will not be willing to go over there and die for a single one of them. However, that was not the main purpose of the war, just a by-product.

-Mike





Go listen to my band. We're awesome.

http://www.myspace.com/rosencrantzny
weallgotwoodandnails

Message deleted on 2015-09-05 06:30:16 PDT

mike where do you work?

Screw Iraq. America should worry about America. If we did, then terrorists wouldn't want to kill us to begin with.

Raindew, a sort of department store similar to K-Mart but smaller...

Why?

-Mike





Go listen to my band. We're awesome.

http://www.myspace.com/rosencrantzny
weallgotwoodandnails

I'm impressed with the political knowledge you guys have. I do have opinions but they are really sensless since we are already there and involved in this war.
The one thing that was noticable was the fact that George danced around the questions with the same answer. Who cares about WMD....I don't.
If you have any human bones in your body you will understand that Saddam was ruthless and close to getting to Hitler status. He tortured so many of his own people. If he was such a leader to his own people,who are killing themselves for his cause, then why did he give up without a fight. He's a gutless coward who,even though he hasn't been linked to Bin Laden,sponsored those ideots in one way or another.
Saudi's shouldn't be in the clear either.
Npow that they killed an Iranian I wonder if they are going to be fumed about it. If so we are going to wake up one of these days to a mass destruction of Iraq and our own people may be innocent victims of the fight between Iran and Iraq. keep tuned for that.
Unfortunately, if you are a democrat,republican or liberal it doesn't really matter because the situation still ends up the same for the President,Damned if you do and Damned if you don't.

'Screw Iraq. America should worry about America. If we did, then terrorists wouldn't want to kill us to begin with.'

.....

Wow, 'upstge'. You're an idiot.

Open you're fucking eyes. If America worried about anything else but America, why should any nation have reason to attack it in the first place?

.....

A lot of these attacks are likely to be in response to something.

.....

There. I'm done.

i've given up on politics all together. i don't trust anything anymore.

i was just wondering

Is it just me or did you call me an idiot then pretty much say the same thing I was saying?

Learn some reading comprehension will you please?

Upstage, i must agree that your statement is pretty radical and illogical...seriously, that right there is why the terrorists want to attack us, cause they think we're capitalists who will only act if there is profit to be had from it and if there is none, we'll sit back and watch the country destroy itself on CNN



Rock on...
Kevin

I wanna be with you forever, and tomorrows not too late...

"Beware the fury of a patient man" ~John Dryden

Well now I hardly think that that's why he's saying. It sounds to me that what he's saying is that the US shouldn't meddle in other country's affairs (ie: supporting unpopular leaders, intervening in civil wars, etc) and that the lack of intervention on the part of the U.S. in those regards would reduce the desire of men to kill every last American left on earth.

I, personally, am a cold-blooded capitalist whore (not really, but that's the way capitalists are often portrayed) who wants the U.S. to remain a wealthy country but wants it to stay the **** out of everyone else's business. If there's a civil war going on in some country, great, let them duke it out. It doesn't concern me. As long as the United States isn't bothered, I see no reason for it to bother anyone else. That's my philosophy in life and my philosophy on politics: "Leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone." I think it's simple, direct, to the point, and doesn't get anyone entangled in things in which they don't belong.

However, if there is such a case where the United States IS bothered under my philosophy, then I believe it is the duty of the country to strike back hard and quickly. I'm also a massive retaliation fan who says, "If you cut off my hand, I'm going to decapitate you."

It's simple. Leave us alone, we'll leave you alone. I don't understand why it just can't be done.

And yeah, some of it is the all too cliched oil business. How in God's name a nation can fly to moon but be unable to come up with another fuel source is beyond my realm of understanding. Not that we don't have our own sources of it. I want Alaska drilled dry. That's why we bought it.

-Mike





Go listen to my band. We're awesome.

http://www.myspace.com/rosencrantzny
weallgotwoodandnails

Message deleted on 2015-09-05 06:30:16 PDT

Iraq left us alone. And were only a threat to themselves. If Saddam was so bad, then his own people would massively uprise and take him out. But in truth, it was a minority in Iraq that were against him and that he dealt harshly with. Look at the numbers compared to the whole population. Saddam's "regime" employed over 80 percent of the population. All of whom were unemployed once the regime toppled. Any wonder there is so much resistance to a new government?

That's one thing. Iraq had nothing to do with terrorist attacks on the US. This is not only proven, but also widely known, even if it is denied by those who want us to believe something other than the whole truth. bin Ladden attacked us. And his ilk have little love for Saddam, who was a self-promoter among an ideology of self-less sacrifice for a greater good.

So let' stop arguing against me that Iraq is somehow related to the 9/11 attacks. That is unless you want to prove your willfull ignorance in matters of historical and vital importance.

I have issue with us being in Iraq. Conversely, I would have supported some sort of action against North Korea. Why? Because they were and are a threat and they will tell you without hesitation that they will kill people should they be provoked. On the other hand, Iraq kept saying they were not a threat, nor had weapons they were being accused of having. (Having desire to gain weapons is not uniquely Iraqi by the by, since almost every country in the world harbors the desire to have weapons of mass destruction thanks to the cold war attitude of stockpiling weapons as an offensive way of defending oneself.) So between the two, which do we attack? Why, the east to topple (or seemingly) less likely to be truly capable of destroying us or our friends.

My original post of "Leave them alone and they will leave us alone" was intended partially as an ironic post pointing out not where we recently went wrong, but where we have historically gone wrong and can now no longer go back. America is an oddity in world history. We are a potentiallin imperial power in who came to that power in an age where empires are no longer tolerated in the world. We have all this authority and force, but no real way to manifest it in the global picture. So we can invade, but not occupy. We can use destroy, but then have to spend money to rebuild. We have an identity crisis that we can not resolve. And it leads us into a mess like this one. Or like Vietnam, or Korea. We became a world power after the last justifiable war (WW Two for those who can't figure it out) and we have since used that power to try and justify our place in the world. Sometimes successfully, sometimes not.

But at some point we must get off this merry go round of events. Force is replied to with force, which is replied to with force. Which is them replied to with force. And so on. But it's this slow chess game of force that prolongs and promotes the needlessness for it's continuation.

What am I saying? Well, if force has to be used it needs to be quick and massive. I dare say that if in fact Iraq was the threat it was presented to be, a well placed nuke in the capital would have silenced the problems. From them or anyone else who even thought about mixing it up with us.

Some who read this may be appalled by that proposal, but I think it far more reasonable than this slow war we now see. Now, we are simply waiting and seeing people die until one of those loose nukes from the former USSR shows up in some nuts hands, or Iran gets a little too nervous and sends an Arab with a suitcase nuke to Iraq. Or North Korea gets tired of being ignored and drops one on the west coast.

If we declared that we want to be left alone by the terrorists, then drop a bomb, saying that that is how we will respond to all threats, I think we would go from the self appointed police of the world to the feared badasses of the world, and no one would give us any more ****.

We can not ever be successful in the world arena though when we swagger in with an olive branch in one hand and a rifle in the other. That is the point from where we need to start looking for solutions. That is the point I intended to make when I said, "leave them alone and they will not want to kill us." We have to find out what it is about us that pisses them off so much and begin to remedy that.

i was just mad that scrubs wasnt on. haha. so instead i popped in kill bill v1.

Yay for scrubs!! (i dont mean im glad it wasnt on)



~ Sofi ~

"And so tomorrow there will be another number for the one who had a name."

I think u have the wrong TEAM LEADER with Bush.... He?s a nooby *******.

I was sad scrubs wasn't on too.



---Anyone perfect must be lying, anything easy has its cost, Anyone plain can be lovely, anyone loved can be lost, What if I lost my direction? What if I lost sense of time? What if I nursed this infection? Maybe the worst is behind---

me too



*~katie~*

dude, 24 wasn't on, i was pissed....it was in the best part! o well.



Rock on...
Kevin

I wanna be with you forever, and tomorrows not too late...

"Beware the fury of a patient man" ~John Dryden

sunday night, baby. i'll be there. will you?

o hell ya



Rock on...
Kevin

I wanna be with you forever, and tomorrows not too late...

"Beware the fury of a patient man" ~John Dryden

Upstage,

Iranians aren't Arab. Just to clear that up.

- Amir
Webmaster of http://www.amirsmusicworld.com

I wasn't saying Iranians are Arab. Look at the sentence again. I was implying that if Iran gets nervous and a nuke gets loose from their program, bet your bottom dollar, it will be a non Iranian that is blamed.

After all, now that Iraq has fallen, there are hordes of non Iraqi terrorists there fighting.