Maybe Bush's best speech to date!!!

[nelison]

I think everything was summed up well.

Personally what I would just like to add is that what I believe protesters are mad about is the way Bush has handled the post-9/11 era. It's been documented that the night of 9/11 Bush stated that he wanted to go after Iraq, and that this would be a perfect chance. How do you decide that Iraq is the target, when they have no part in the matter?

The answer to this is easy. Let's face it, Bush Sr. failed at getting Saddam when he had a chance. I'm very sure that Bush jr. was looking to complete the job his dad started. This isn't a national vendetta, it was personal. Fortunately for Bush he has a couple people around him who know a hell of a lot more about foreign policy than he does, and they told him the only way to get to Iraq would be to first go after Bin Laden and the Taliban. This is obvious. Even more obvious when you see that Bush moved on from Bin Laden even though he wasn't dead or captured. That was his publicly admitted goal: To get Bin Laden. Behind the scenes was another story.

Bush knew he just had to wait it out. The bush's themselves are good friends with the Bin Laden family, and in fact Bush sr. was in a meeting with a Bin Laden the morning of sept 11. They also got all the Bin Laden's together and shipped them out of the country as soon as possible. Why? Wouldn't it have been smart to detain and question them? I mean these people are Osama's blood.

So now Osama still hasn't been caught, but because he's "on the run", it's alright to move on. Now you can cue the "Axis of Evil" speech. This led the way to many lies, but luckily for Bush, most Americans didn't seem to care. Iraq is then attacked.

If you'd like we can talk about Bush's love for oil, and how ironically Iraq is among the world leaders in oil production, but that would just tell us all something that we already know, and it's a pretty obvious link to why he would want to help "liberate" the Iraqi people.


Let's face it. This isn't about what Bush says it's about. Its economics. He wants Iraq to be a democracy so that way they can be opened up to the market. It's not about liberating people. It's about putting a Starbucks on every corner in Baghdad. He said in his speech that newspapers are now circulating, and reporting whatever news they would like to report. My question is how long till these small papers are bought by some American Tycoon, and the Baghdad Bugle appears? My bet, is by the end of the decade, if not by 2007.


Another question I have is why is democracy the answer? It works here (and as we even see in this very message board, it's disagreed with), but who's to say it works in other countries? The fact is it doesn't. Many countries can't make it work. Even in the last 20 years we've found examples of democracies gone wrong. I recently read an article on this in my politics course, but unfortunately can't find it online. If I can find a scanner I will be sure to photocopy it and put it up, cause it's worth the read.

[Venom]

The world has sat back for too long. But force won't solve the situation. The way to stop terrorism is not by bombing countries and killing many innocent people. It should be done by catching the leaders, punish them severely and give the people a chance of a better future. Invest in education and economies. Bombings only increase the anti-western hate and causes more terrorist attacks. Instead of spending billions on arms and armies, give some money to third world countries, take away their debts, give their people a chance to a proper education and a proper future.

What will solve the situation? Sitting back and doing nothing. In order to go after the terrorist leaders you have to use force. You think Bin Laden is just gonna come out and surrender with out a huge fight?? Come on your not that stupid are you? People hated the US in Germany, Russia, Italy during WWII and after. Look at them now. They are democratic states and are glad to see Communism and Facism gone. What is the difference today? Nothing! The people in terrorist and Totalitarian states aren't allowed to learn anything they want. How are we supposed to improve their education without taking out their oppressive governments that don't allow good education?? None of you see the bigger picture here. This is no different than anyother world problem in the past.

The answer to this is easy. Let's face it, Bush Sr. failed at getting Saddam when he had a chance. I'm very sure that Bush jr. was looking to complete the job his dad started. This isn't a national vendetta, it was personal. Fortunately for Bush he has a couple people around him who know a hell of a lot more about foreign policy than he does, and they told him the only way to get to Iraq would be to first go after Bin Laden and the Taliban. This is obvious. Even more obvious when you see that Bush moved on from Bin Laden even though he wasn't dead or captured. That was his publicly admitted goal: To get Bin Laden. Behind the scenes was another story.

It is a world vendetta. (at least it should be) Clinton bombed Iraq too. Have you forgotten that?? There were 8 years between the Bush's and the only difference is that in those 8 years we had a pacifist president and he allowed Bin Laden to get away countless times as well. Also where do you get your information? Last I checked we were still after Bin Laden. We're still in Afghanistan and Pakistan are we not?? Just cuz the media would rather publicize Michael Jackson doesn't mean we're not there! You should really better inform yourself.

Bush knew he just had to wait it out. The bush's themselves are good friends with the Bin Laden family, and in fact Bush sr. was in a meeting with a Bin Laden the morning of sept 11. They also got all the Bin Laden's together and shipped them out of the country as soon as possible. Why? Wouldn't it have been smart to detain and question them? I mean these people are Osama's blood.

So if your brother blows up a building should everyone condem you as well? Its common knowledge that his family doesn't support Osama's actions. Sounds like you support being guilty by association.

If you'd like we can talk about Bush's love for oil, and how ironically Iraq is among the world leaders in oil production, but that would just tell us all something that we already know, and it's a pretty obvious link to why he would want to help "liberate" the Iraqi people.

Like I've said before there is more oil in Canada that we could easily trade for and cheaper. Your arguement is cliche and untrue. Why don't you just come out and say that you don't think everyone has the right to freedom. You would rather Saddam kill more of his own people. That is a fact. THe US and Britian has found over 400,000 people in mass graves in Iraq.

Another question I have is why is democracy the answer? It works here (and as we even see in this very message board, it's disagreed with), but who's to say it works in other countries? The fact is it doesn't. Many countries can't make it work. Even in the last 20 years we've found examples of democracies gone wrong. I recently read an article on this in my politics course, but unfortunately can't find it online. If I can find a scanner I will be sure to photocopy it and put it up, cause it's worth the read.

LOL yeah and those people here want chaos. You think Anarchy is the solution?! I would love to read about these "failed" democracies. I can think of a few that fell due to radicals that took over by force but none that "didn't work". Again it seems to me that you are against freedom.

[Venom]

I can't find who said it and I have to get back to work, but to whoever said that we have the ability to zoom in on someones nosehairs so why can't we find Bin Laden. To you I say you have been watching way too many movies!! We can only do that if they look straight up into the sky. We can't tell who is who unless we know right where they are in advance.

[Eelco]

What will solve the situation? Sitting back and doing nothing. In order to go after the terrorist leaders you have to use force. You think Bin Laden is just gonna come out and surrender with out a huge fight?? Come on your not that stupid are you? People hated the US in Germany, Russia, Italy during WWII and after. Look at them now. They are democratic states and are glad to see Communism and Facism gone. What is the difference today? Nothing! The people in terrorist and Totalitarian states aren't allowed to learn anything they want. How are we supposed to improve their education without taking out their oppressive governments that don't allow good education?? None of you see the bigger picture here. This is no different than anyother world problem in the past.

That's exactly what I said, take out their leaders, and then help them build a decent education and economy. Just like the Allies did after WOII, they took out the nazi regime and gave financial support to the European countries.
Bombing Afghanistan and Iraq isn't going to take out the leaders, they couldn't care less how many civilians die, it will only increase their support, because the people will hate the US more, so they join the army and are easier to recrute for terrorist actions.

[happening fish]

I can't find who said it and I have to get back to work, but to whoever said that we have the ability to zoom in on someones nosehairs so why can't we find Bin Laden. To you I say you have been watching way too many movies!! We can only do that if they look straight up into the sky. We can't tell who is who unless we know right where they are in advance.

I think they were making a point.

And ps, your military satellite capabilites are accurate to 1m x 1m.

[nelison]

thanks Alex, That was a point I was trying to proove.

It just seems odd that a country has all this technology and all this power but yet can't find one man.

[Venom]

That's exactly what I said, take out their leaders, and then help them build a decent education and economy. Just like the Allies did after WOII, they took out the nazi regime and gave financial support to the European countries.
Bombing Afghanistan and Iraq isn't going to take out the leaders, they couldn't care less how many civilians die, it will only increase their support, because the people will hate the US more, so they join the army and are easier to recrute for terrorist actions.

Remind me what happened before those leaders were taken out? Yeah millions of civilians died beforehand! No where near that many have died as a result of Iraq and Afghanistan. You can't just go in and take out leaders. #1 state sponsored assasination is illegal (I don't agree with that but it is) and #2 their followers would just take their place. If we had just killed Saddam his sons would have teken over, and if we took them out there were about 20 Baathists below them that would have. You have to use force to take over. You can't just go in there and say "ok you have to leave now" and expect them to comply. Sometimes force is the only option and some of you have to realize that or you'll be walked all over. The US gave Saddam months to step downand leave the country. A few countries offered him exile. He refused so force had to be used. You act like that wasn't tried. He said it on a live interview with Dan Rather that he wouldn't leave. What more do you want?

[Venom]

England, France and Russia were already fighting the nazis.

Not before "millions" of Jews and Poles were killed. They were being killed and people knew about it LONG before the war started!

Venom wrote:
#2. Do you think it was right that the UN sat back and did nothing about the actions in Bosnia, Kosovo, Croatia, etc? If you look back it was the US that led the decision to defy the UN and go in there as well. Was that wrong?


It was wrong to defy the UN and make the decision to attack Iraq on it's own. Because it undermined the UN, it makes it totally useless. Which it may possibly be, but it's the best we got at the moment. By ignoring the UN the US has set a bad example that gives other countries the idea that it's alright to attack other countries if they think that's the right thing to do.

You didn't answer my question. I asked about the former Yugoslavia states. Was it wrong to do in there against the UN? If you say yes then you don't care that millions of Muslims, Croats, AND SERBS (u happy) were being slaughtered and driven from their homes. The world knew about it for years before the US and NATO finally decided to go against the UN. If you say no it wasn't wrong then you have no case against defying the UN on Iraq. So either you have no respect for the people in the former Yugoslavia and would instead support the UN. Or you don't support the UN and are just Anti-American. Which is it? If you support one you have to support the other. In both cases a tyrant killed hundreds of thousands or even millions of his own people and in both cases the UN DIDN'T CARE!

[Eelco]

Remind me what happened before those leaders were taken out? Yeah millions of civilians died beforehand! No where near that many have died as a result of Iraq and Afghanistan. You can't just go in and take out leaders. #1 state sponsored assasination is illegal (I don't agree with that but it is) and #2 their followers would just take their place. If we had just killed Saddam his sons would have teken over, and if we took them out there were about 20 Baathists below them that would have. You have to use force to take over. You can't just go in there and say "ok you have to leave now" and expect them to comply. Sometimes force is the only option and some of you have to realize that or you'll be walked all over. The US gave Saddam months to step downand leave the country. A few countries offered him exile. He refused so force had to be used. You act like that wasn't tried. He said it on a live interview with Dan Rather that he wouldn't leave. What more do you want?

Of course he's not going to leave voluntarily. As you pointed out before, I'm not that stupid. But what you're saying now sounds like that the US was that stupid. They should have arrested him and put him on trial for war crimes. But they probably didn't want to do that, because then they might have been charged too, the same reason why the US is agains the International Court. And with Saddam gone, yes his sons would have taken over, but they too should have been convicted. Then there would be similar situation like there is now, but without a second war. It's not the war itself I'm against, I understand you can't solve issues like this without any force whatsoever, but I don't the way the US has played this war was the best.

[Venom]

You didn't answer me.....how were we supposed to get them peacefully??

[Eelco]

You didn't answer me.....how were we supposed to get them peacefully??

I did answer your question. I admitted that it's impossible to catch them without any force. But the amount of force used and the reasons why don't justify it.

As for the former Yugoslavian states, I would say no answer your question. But that doesn't make it right to attack countries without UN support. However the UN should have done more.

If you support one you have to support the other

The world isn't black and white. I don't support the US, I don't hate them either. At least they are trying to do something, although in my opinion not in the best way. I don't support the UN fully either. I think the UN could do more than just 'peacekeeping'.
These matters are extremely complicated, the world most prominent political and intelligent people can't solve them, so I have no illusion that I can. I'm just expressing my own view.

[I AM ME]

first of all i would like to say

second off, lets back this up, assainating a leader is illeagal......but invading and bombing the shit out of a country isn't? Not to mention killing him afterwards anyways?

[Venom]

As for the former Yugoslavian states, I would say no answer your question. But that doesn't make it right to attack countries without UN support. However the UN should have done more.

I think through all this we have come to the conclusion that the UN doesn't uphold the things it stands for and therefore someone has to. The US has done that twice in the past decade. The US and her allies have saved more lives in these conflicts. If not for them these atrocities would still be going on. When the next generation looks back at this time it will be written that the US did the right thing while most of the world stood by and did nothing. In fact they would rather everyone die than help out!

[Venom]

The world isn't black and white. I don't support the US, I don't hate them either. At least they are trying to do something, although in my opinion not in the best way. I don't support the UN fully either. I think the UN could do more than just 'peacekeeping'.
These matters are extremely complicated, the world most prominent political and intelligent people can't solve them, so I have no illusion that I can.

They can solve them some countries are just unwilling to. There is always someone with an economic interest in an area that needs to be dealt with. Just like France and Russia over Iraq! Kissinger once said "the weakest of collective security is that interests are rarely uniform and that security is rarely seamless. Members of a general system of collective security are therefore more likely to agree on inaction than on joint action." (or something like that.....I believe that is the exact quote but I'm working off of my 2nd year college paper memory). The UN either needs reforming as to how it decides if force is necessary or it needs to disappear. The US and her allies have made it clear that they will do whatever necessary to make the world safe.

[Bandalero]

That's exactly what I said, take out their leaders, and then help them build a decent education and economy. Just like the Allies did after WOII, they took out the nazi regime and gave financial support to the European countries.

that took 7 years.

why should we care? We don't care about Uganda, we don't care about the Holocaust happening in North Korea right now. we don't care about the gangs running Yugoslavia right now, or the slaughters going on in Kenya or Niger, or whereever it's happening. we don't care about the drugs comming in from central America, we don't give a shit about alot of things, and neither does the UN. why do we care so damn much about Iraq? i understand the taliban and the al queda shit, but of all places Iraq? I would have thought we would have gone into Saudi Arabia first. why don't we just pack it up, come home, and worry about ourselves? Global Economy.....sure why not? were about making money. protecting everyone else? no...what for? the UN doesn't do alot of shit, and when they do want to go somewhere, they want the US to send their troops as UN peacekeepers. most UN operations have a majority of US troops. so why don't we come home, and sit on our asses and wait for the UN to call. or even better, let's go to uganda and take care of something the UN isn't seeing or chooses to not give a damn. that way we can embarass the Un, because were not doing it in Iraq. it's not our duty to sniff out ethnic cleansing, it's not our duty to send troops and money to countries, only for them to later backstab us and ridicule us. if that's the case i want our money back. i want our kids back. hell they're only in the army because they want money for school. you don't want to be greatful about someone caring enough to send money and aid, then fuck you, you must not want it. or need it for that matter.

let's move on from 9/11. let's disperse Al Queda enough so that it's no longer a major force, and then right after that, lets hang the corpses of our enemy's from the trees and see how many people want to fuck with us now. and lets sit at home and take care of ourselves. the last thing i want to hear is were going into N. Korea because of 9/11. that's just bullshit, next time we do something we better have a better excuse. and better fucking intel.

[I AM ME]

just to add to what reno said, Osama considered Saddam a Infidel, and they didn't get along..

[nelison]

very well said Reno.