Bush's TV speech 10/7
speediva
10-07-2002, 09:01 PM
Why do I NOT like the tone he used?? It sounds far too much like the idea of war is set in his mind. :o :bloated: :(
Heep
10-07-2002, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by saturntangerine
Why do I NOT like the tone he used?? It sounds far too much like the idea of war is set in his mind. :o :bloated: :(
I think we should take over Iraq and take all the oil for ourselves. 10 cent a liter gas, baby! :D
Why do I NOT like the tone he used?? It sounds far too much like the idea of war is set in his mind. :o :bloated: :(
I think we should take over Iraq and take all the oil for ourselves. 10 cent a liter gas, baby! :D
DMC12
10-07-2002, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by saturntangerine
Why do I NOT like the tone he used??
Isn't it because "I don't have to like George Bush to like America"? ;) j/k But seriously, what do you suggest we (US) do instead?
Why do I NOT like the tone he used??
Isn't it because "I don't have to like George Bush to like America"? ;) j/k But seriously, what do you suggest we (US) do instead?
replicant_008
10-07-2002, 09:23 PM
One word: Bellicose
ie eager to fight, warlike...
ie eager to fight, warlike...
Spec2 Girl
10-07-2002, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by saturntangerine
Why do I NOT like the tone he used?? It sounds far too much like the idea of war is set in his mind. :o :bloated: :( To me he’s sounded like that from Day 1. It's bound to happen sooner or later. :(
Why do I NOT like the tone he used?? It sounds far too much like the idea of war is set in his mind. :o :bloated: :( To me he’s sounded like that from Day 1. It's bound to happen sooner or later. :(
taranaki
10-07-2002, 10:14 PM
Originally posted by DMC12
But seriously, what do you suggest we (US) do instead?
Everybody is getting into the false assumption that there is some kind of 'crisis' that needs to be 'dealt with'.
Bush would love people to believe that Iraq is smart enought to build weapons of mass destruction,and yet stupid enough to try and deploy them against the strongest military nation in the world.
The only extremist with access to weapons of mass destruction who seems over-zealous in his fundamentalism is George.
There will be no war unless Bush starts one.
But seriously, what do you suggest we (US) do instead?
Everybody is getting into the false assumption that there is some kind of 'crisis' that needs to be 'dealt with'.
Bush would love people to believe that Iraq is smart enought to build weapons of mass destruction,and yet stupid enough to try and deploy them against the strongest military nation in the world.
The only extremist with access to weapons of mass destruction who seems over-zealous in his fundamentalism is George.
There will be no war unless Bush starts one.
Fireinthesky28
10-07-2002, 10:17 PM
This article kinda sums up my whole opinion of the issue:)
http://www.theonion.com/onion3836/bush_seeks_un_support.html
http://www.theonion.com/onion3836/bush_seeks_un_support.html
Oz
10-07-2002, 10:34 PM
My Problems with Bush at the moment
His motivation - Continuing 'Daddy's' war? OIL! Vengence?
His communication - "War is not the only option - it's the last option" but the only one I have discussed or thought about to any extent.
His Methods - Iraq has been stocking up on weapons of mass destruction. So let's fight them with - yes, that's right - MORE FREAKIN' WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION! And at the same time 'use up' some of our weapons of mass destruction so we can't be accused of the same thing.
And lastly - when was the last time UN weapons inspectors inspected the US arsenal! Bull-sucking-shit (pardon French) the US declares all they do, make and sundry.
/Finish Fairly Substantiated Rant
His motivation - Continuing 'Daddy's' war? OIL! Vengence?
His communication - "War is not the only option - it's the last option" but the only one I have discussed or thought about to any extent.
His Methods - Iraq has been stocking up on weapons of mass destruction. So let's fight them with - yes, that's right - MORE FREAKIN' WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION! And at the same time 'use up' some of our weapons of mass destruction so we can't be accused of the same thing.
And lastly - when was the last time UN weapons inspectors inspected the US arsenal! Bull-sucking-shit (pardon French) the US declares all they do, make and sundry.
/Finish Fairly Substantiated Rant
Moppie
10-07-2002, 10:48 PM
Im going to keep my mouth shut on this.
I think everyone knows how I feel about the US, and the way its governed, so theres no point getting under anybodys skin for the sake of a rant. ;)
I think everyone knows how I feel about the US, and the way its governed, so theres no point getting under anybodys skin for the sake of a rant. ;)
taranaki
10-07-2002, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by Moppie
Im going to keep my mouth shut on this.
I think everyone knows how I feel about the US, and the way its governed, so theres no point getting under anybodys skin for the sake of a rant. ;)
Somebody has to stand up and say no.
Im going to keep my mouth shut on this.
I think everyone knows how I feel about the US, and the way its governed, so theres no point getting under anybodys skin for the sake of a rant. ;)
Somebody has to stand up and say no.
Heep
10-07-2002, 11:08 PM
I think the poor US is just a prime target for everyone to hate because they're so damn powerful. Do I like the States? No. Do I dislike the States? Equally No. Despite everyone's gripes about how it's governed, the government over the years has obviously done a good enough job to make it probably the most recognized country in the world....
taranaki
10-07-2002, 11:32 PM
I've saoid it before,I'll probably have to say it again....I don't hate America,or Americans.I just think that the u.s has an abysmal record as far as foreign affairs is concerned,and it's showing no sighn of getting any bettter.
Moppie
10-07-2002, 11:32 PM
Originally posted by taranaki
Somebody has to stand up and say no.
Ok.
(if your an American please dont be offended, this isn't aimed at you, but at the people that have true power and run your nation)
Bush and all his surporters, including his advisers are nothing more than a bunch of racist, bigoted, ignorant, power hungry war mongers.
They are no better than any of the racist, bigoted, ignorant, power hungry war mongers who have been before them, from Hitler, to Stalin, to Napolean, to the Roman Ceasers, or the old Mongol Leaders.
They are people who through out history are known only for being destroyers of peace, and haters of humanity.
Sure Iraq is a nation that needs to be bought under controll. But in terms of presenting an internatinal threat they are no worse than many other Nations.
You have to remember that both Pakistan and India have Nuclear weapons, and the ablity to deploy them anywhere in the world.
India is a realitivly stable natian, but Pakistan is not, yet it was known before they became Nuclear capable that they were not far from it.
Yet the US did nothing to intervene, and just sat back and let it happen.
The Media then conviently forgot to mention this after 9/11. Pakistan was blamed heavily at the time for surrporting Terroist ativity, and provides far more surrport in terms of Men and Arms to Al'quida (sp?) than any other nation. So why dosn't bush want to attack Pakistan and rid it of its threat to friendly India next door, rid it of its assitance to terrorists, and rid it off its continuesly poor treatment of its citizens?
Becasue Pakistan is not located in a stratigic position in the middle of the worlds Oil Supply.
Bush is useing the whole terrorist problem to drum up surrport for a western take over of the middle east. He wants to start by taking controll of Iraq, and then simply expanding from there.
Iraq's neighbor Iran is just as guilty of the same crimes leveled against Iraq, and once those two had fallen the rest of the middle east would be forced to compel to the wishs of the US, and the rest of the western world.
He dosnt really give a damn about the "threat" terrorists pose to the western world, if he did then he would also be paying close attention to the many organisations already operating in Europe, the activites of Isreal, the many organisations operating in South America, and of course the past History of the US.
(just remember the US war of independance, and the Civil War were fought useing a lot of terrorist tactics, and were won by the side regarded by most of Europe at the time as terrorists.)
Bush has but one goal, to control the middle eastern oil fields, they have for the last hundred years been the key to contolling the world, as the energy they provide is what keeps the western world ticking, and its the ticking of the western world that keeps everyone else following.
Also of note, the US has been stock piling its own Oil reserves, for the last 50 odd years, and has been buying oil from else where. It its thought that there is enough stock pilled to surrport the US for 50-100 years at least. So if bushs plan fails, and the US is cut off from the middle eastern oil supply, then the US losses very little, while the rest of the world suffers, and would be forced to buy oil from the US. (at a highly inflatted price). The same would likely happen if the US did take over the middle eastern oil supply, it would give them totaly control of the worlds oil supply, and allow them to charge what they liked. Prices would not go down. Even for US citizens, instead the US government would simply make a lot of money, at the expense of the rest of the world.
Believe what you like, or don't believe any of it.
But if you think Bush wants to invade Iraq becasue it is a nation of great evil, and poses a huge and over powering threat to the Western world then you are an ignorant fool.
Wars are never fought in then name of peace. They are always fought in the name of power.
Somebody has to stand up and say no.
Ok.
(if your an American please dont be offended, this isn't aimed at you, but at the people that have true power and run your nation)
Bush and all his surporters, including his advisers are nothing more than a bunch of racist, bigoted, ignorant, power hungry war mongers.
They are no better than any of the racist, bigoted, ignorant, power hungry war mongers who have been before them, from Hitler, to Stalin, to Napolean, to the Roman Ceasers, or the old Mongol Leaders.
They are people who through out history are known only for being destroyers of peace, and haters of humanity.
Sure Iraq is a nation that needs to be bought under controll. But in terms of presenting an internatinal threat they are no worse than many other Nations.
You have to remember that both Pakistan and India have Nuclear weapons, and the ablity to deploy them anywhere in the world.
India is a realitivly stable natian, but Pakistan is not, yet it was known before they became Nuclear capable that they were not far from it.
Yet the US did nothing to intervene, and just sat back and let it happen.
The Media then conviently forgot to mention this after 9/11. Pakistan was blamed heavily at the time for surrporting Terroist ativity, and provides far more surrport in terms of Men and Arms to Al'quida (sp?) than any other nation. So why dosn't bush want to attack Pakistan and rid it of its threat to friendly India next door, rid it of its assitance to terrorists, and rid it off its continuesly poor treatment of its citizens?
Becasue Pakistan is not located in a stratigic position in the middle of the worlds Oil Supply.
Bush is useing the whole terrorist problem to drum up surrport for a western take over of the middle east. He wants to start by taking controll of Iraq, and then simply expanding from there.
Iraq's neighbor Iran is just as guilty of the same crimes leveled against Iraq, and once those two had fallen the rest of the middle east would be forced to compel to the wishs of the US, and the rest of the western world.
He dosnt really give a damn about the "threat" terrorists pose to the western world, if he did then he would also be paying close attention to the many organisations already operating in Europe, the activites of Isreal, the many organisations operating in South America, and of course the past History of the US.
(just remember the US war of independance, and the Civil War were fought useing a lot of terrorist tactics, and were won by the side regarded by most of Europe at the time as terrorists.)
Bush has but one goal, to control the middle eastern oil fields, they have for the last hundred years been the key to contolling the world, as the energy they provide is what keeps the western world ticking, and its the ticking of the western world that keeps everyone else following.
Also of note, the US has been stock piling its own Oil reserves, for the last 50 odd years, and has been buying oil from else where. It its thought that there is enough stock pilled to surrport the US for 50-100 years at least. So if bushs plan fails, and the US is cut off from the middle eastern oil supply, then the US losses very little, while the rest of the world suffers, and would be forced to buy oil from the US. (at a highly inflatted price). The same would likely happen if the US did take over the middle eastern oil supply, it would give them totaly control of the worlds oil supply, and allow them to charge what they liked. Prices would not go down. Even for US citizens, instead the US government would simply make a lot of money, at the expense of the rest of the world.
Believe what you like, or don't believe any of it.
But if you think Bush wants to invade Iraq becasue it is a nation of great evil, and poses a huge and over powering threat to the Western world then you are an ignorant fool.
Wars are never fought in then name of peace. They are always fought in the name of power.
Heep
10-07-2002, 11:55 PM
I'm going to move this to the politcal forum. I see it heading no other direction....
JD@af
10-08-2002, 12:14 AM
Well said, Mops. I agree.. almost 100%. The current administration is so heavily "lobbied" towards oil consumption it sickens me that we elected such a heavily "bought" regime to power.
However, the part you didn't mention was Bush's other agenda. Many Republican candidates stand to gain in approval and get elected in the upcoming elections, supported by the popularity of Bush's little war. Hell they stand to gain control of all of Congress if they do well enough in the elections. And most importantly, without war, people will stop worrying about Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, Saddam, and start to focus on our shitty economy. And what the fuck is Bush going to do about our slumping economy? Not a blessed thing, except protect his own interests, and hope that war will be good enough for the economy to keep him afloat through the 2004 elections. Since historically the end of wars bring economic depression, I really don't think that I want my economy being kicked while its down if this Iraq deal turns into a full scale war, which we'll eventually win.
You may argue that the downturn has nothing to do with his presidency, that it was emminent anyway, but none the less, when the economy goes to shit like this, the President is usually blamed. Frankly, I am just hoping that Bush's ploy to distract us and gain support for his war falls as flat on its face as it did for his father. I don't want four more years of this shit come 2004 :rolleyes:
However, the part you didn't mention was Bush's other agenda. Many Republican candidates stand to gain in approval and get elected in the upcoming elections, supported by the popularity of Bush's little war. Hell they stand to gain control of all of Congress if they do well enough in the elections. And most importantly, without war, people will stop worrying about Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, Saddam, and start to focus on our shitty economy. And what the fuck is Bush going to do about our slumping economy? Not a blessed thing, except protect his own interests, and hope that war will be good enough for the economy to keep him afloat through the 2004 elections. Since historically the end of wars bring economic depression, I really don't think that I want my economy being kicked while its down if this Iraq deal turns into a full scale war, which we'll eventually win.
You may argue that the downturn has nothing to do with his presidency, that it was emminent anyway, but none the less, when the economy goes to shit like this, the President is usually blamed. Frankly, I am just hoping that Bush's ploy to distract us and gain support for his war falls as flat on its face as it did for his father. I don't want four more years of this shit come 2004 :rolleyes:
Moppie
10-08-2002, 01:40 AM
Originally posted by JD@af
I don't want four more years of this shit come 2004 :rolleyes:
I have a feeling that Bush may be screwed next election, provided he gets some competent oposition.
From what Iv seen of the attitude towards him in the media of most Americans he dons't really have the surport needed to win another election, especialy now people see the consequences of not voting and being apathetic. (the whole reason he got power to begin with).
So provided come the next election Bush has vote worth compititon it should be easy to oust him from power.
I get the impression most of his current surrport comes from simple patriotisim, "hes the president, so I should follow him".
Give people a choice, i.e. election time, and those feeling are dropped, and people think a little more about how he's preformed, and delt with the National problems, like the Economy, or for example the Warf Strikes occuring at the moment.
I don't want four more years of this shit come 2004 :rolleyes:
I have a feeling that Bush may be screwed next election, provided he gets some competent oposition.
From what Iv seen of the attitude towards him in the media of most Americans he dons't really have the surport needed to win another election, especialy now people see the consequences of not voting and being apathetic. (the whole reason he got power to begin with).
So provided come the next election Bush has vote worth compititon it should be easy to oust him from power.
I get the impression most of his current surrport comes from simple patriotisim, "hes the president, so I should follow him".
Give people a choice, i.e. election time, and those feeling are dropped, and people think a little more about how he's preformed, and delt with the National problems, like the Economy, or for example the Warf Strikes occuring at the moment.
Ssom
10-08-2002, 04:06 AM
Originally posted by Moppie
I get the impression most of his current surrport comes from simple patriotisim, "hes the president, so I should follow him".
Give people a choice, i.e. election time, and those feeling are dropped, and people think a little more about how he's preformed, and delt with the National problems, like the Economy, or for example the Warf Strikes occuring at the moment.
Exactly- the economy is about to pass into recession (sp)- he's busy wasting MORE money- trying to neutralise a non-existant threat :mad:
I get the impression most of his current surrport comes from simple patriotisim, "hes the president, so I should follow him".
Give people a choice, i.e. election time, and those feeling are dropped, and people think a little more about how he's preformed, and delt with the National problems, like the Economy, or for example the Warf Strikes occuring at the moment.
Exactly- the economy is about to pass into recession (sp)- he's busy wasting MORE money- trying to neutralise a non-existant threat :mad:
YogsVR4
10-09-2002, 08:51 PM
I've stayed out of this for a while but I will say that most every Bush/ American government basher here likes to use snappy words like "Racist" "Greedy" and "Evil". You're blinded by your own biases. You've got it in your mind such that anything he does you'll berate and claim how terrible it is.
Anyone who thinks Saddam will directly attack America is wrong. Those of you who think he wont indirectly attack America are also wrong. Did Afghanistan directly attack us? Nope. Hell - did Germany twice last century? Hell no. Does that mean we should sit here and wait for a mushroom cloud?
None of you believe the president when he says their is proof he has these weapons. You wont believe him or you'd make other excuses when the evidence sits right in front of you. Of course you'll believe people like Ted Kennedy who killed more people in his car then the entire US vs Soviet cold war but you certainly wont believe high ranking Iraqi military defectors who say he has the means and the will.
Thank goodness our societies aren't run by people who want our country to turn a blind eye to those that would see us dead. Thank god we're being proactive instead of watching our buildings fall and our cities burn.
Anyone who thinks Saddam will directly attack America is wrong. Those of you who think he wont indirectly attack America are also wrong. Did Afghanistan directly attack us? Nope. Hell - did Germany twice last century? Hell no. Does that mean we should sit here and wait for a mushroom cloud?
None of you believe the president when he says their is proof he has these weapons. You wont believe him or you'd make other excuses when the evidence sits right in front of you. Of course you'll believe people like Ted Kennedy who killed more people in his car then the entire US vs Soviet cold war but you certainly wont believe high ranking Iraqi military defectors who say he has the means and the will.
Thank goodness our societies aren't run by people who want our country to turn a blind eye to those that would see us dead. Thank god we're being proactive instead of watching our buildings fall and our cities burn.
YogsVR4
10-09-2002, 08:52 PM
Originally posted by Moss1O6GTi
Exactly- the economy is about to pass into recession (sp)- he's busy wasting MORE money- trying to neutralise a non-existant threat :mad:
Non Existant threat?!?!?! Are you out of your mind?!
Exactly- the economy is about to pass into recession (sp)- he's busy wasting MORE money- trying to neutralise a non-existant threat :mad:
Non Existant threat?!?!?! Are you out of your mind?!
YogsVR4
10-09-2002, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by Moppie
I have a feeling that Bush may be screwed next election, provided he gets some competent oposition.
From what Iv seen of the attitude towards him in the media of most Americans he dons't really have the surport needed to win another election, especialy now people see the consequences of not voting and being apathetic. (the whole reason he got power to begin with).
So provided come the next election Bush has vote worth compititon it should be easy to oust him from power.
I get the impression most of his current surrport comes from simple patriotisim, "hes the president, so I should follow him".
Give people a choice, i.e. election time, and those feeling are dropped, and people think a little more about how he's preformed, and delt with the National problems, like the Economy, or for example the Warf Strikes occuring at the moment.
You're seeing that the media doesn't like Bush because they dont like anyone who has any conservative values. You'll find that we are not the simple people who say "hes the president, so I should follow him". Sorry, but we are not dolts here. At this point Bush will win the next election (assuming he runs and all) for no other reason then there isn't another worthy canidate being offered by the Democrats.
I have a feeling that Bush may be screwed next election, provided he gets some competent oposition.
From what Iv seen of the attitude towards him in the media of most Americans he dons't really have the surport needed to win another election, especialy now people see the consequences of not voting and being apathetic. (the whole reason he got power to begin with).
So provided come the next election Bush has vote worth compititon it should be easy to oust him from power.
I get the impression most of his current surrport comes from simple patriotisim, "hes the president, so I should follow him".
Give people a choice, i.e. election time, and those feeling are dropped, and people think a little more about how he's preformed, and delt with the National problems, like the Economy, or for example the Warf Strikes occuring at the moment.
You're seeing that the media doesn't like Bush because they dont like anyone who has any conservative values. You'll find that we are not the simple people who say "hes the president, so I should follow him". Sorry, but we are not dolts here. At this point Bush will win the next election (assuming he runs and all) for no other reason then there isn't another worthy canidate being offered by the Democrats.
speediva
10-10-2002, 01:49 AM
http://files.automotiveforums.com/uploads/540605bushgassaddam.jpg
Welcome Back to Daddy's war. I'm not in the mood to say anything further at this point.
Welcome Back to Daddy's war. I'm not in the mood to say anything further at this point.
JD@af
10-10-2002, 02:09 AM
Originally posted by YogsVR4
You're seeing that the media doesn't like Bush because they dont like anyone who has any conservative values. You'll find that we are not the simple people who say "hes the president, so I should follow him". Sorry, but we are not dolts here. At this point Bush will win the next election (assuming he runs and all) for no other reason then there isn't another worthy canidate being offered by the Democrats. Interestingly enough, I had a long talk with a buddy of mine today who is very conservative, about Bush, his stance on Iraq, and his chances of winning the next election.
First off, I think it is fair to say that those who support Al Qaeda and any other parties responsible for the Sept. 11th attacks represent a threat to our national security. Though I was hesitant about our strong military stance initially, I see now that it was the right choice to make. Be it as it may that Osama may very well still be at large, and planning new attacks, we have certainly fucked up his game significantly, and made it more difficult for him to proceed with his master plan, whatever it may be. However, I am not so sure about Iraq. It doesn’t seem likely that Saddam has had a hand in conjunction with the work of Al Qaeda and the Taliban in many of the terrorist attacks posed on US soil of late, as they themselves are really enemies.
When it comes to non-nuclear attacks, less direct “stealth” attacks on the US, again I don’t think we can single out Iraq. We have enemies tucked into every corner and lurking in every alley in the Middle East. Saddam serves as the biggest scapegoat, the most blatant threat among them at this point, but the problem spreads far beyond him. Besides, if I’m not mistaken, we are using the threat of nuclear weapons as our foot in the door for the disruption of Iraqi affairs, i.e. Saddam’s noncompliance with mandatory UN inspections. I don't want Saddam in power, I'd love to see him ousted, but is there enough evidence, not speculation, to support the notion of his purported vengeful attacked waiting to be hatched on the United States? Our best lead is the nukes... though maybe that's just what the contrived propaganda of the media would have us believe. But, if that's what we have to go on, it is certainly understandable that our intentions of removing Saddam and emplacing a Democratic government in Iraq may be most commonly viewed as bullish colonialism.
Is the reason to reinvade Iraq and remove Saddam from power nuclear weapons, or is it the ulterior motives? Let's face it, Saddam knows very well that if he's foolish enough to launch an atomic weapon at the US, his country and everyone in it will be bombed 10 times as hard. I don't know if that obscenely high security underground lair he had built still functions, and even if it did that it could survive the fallout from our retaliation. I won't argue that he is a mad and sick man (apparently he actually enjoys watching people being tortured), but I think that his motives for wanting to drop a nuke on us are not nearly as strong as some would believe. He is not suicidal, because that's what doing it would be. Naturally, it comes down to more than just the nukes. If it was just the nukes, why not target Pakistan, India, China? There is the Saddam factor (who did try to have George sr. assassinated, so George W.'s got that to be pissed about), but as many Middle East politics usually come down to, Bush's goal involves the oil that Iraq controls. As I said before, Bush, Cheney, hell practically the whole administration has their fingers in it.
As for Bush being re-elected, I’ll make it no less obvious than I already have that I want the man out of office. But I don’t really think its much of an issue. Even if he does reinvade Iraq, it will be another swift and easy victory, like it was a decade ago. It’s only a matter of time before Bush will run out of wars to fight. Then what will he be left with? A national economy that many fear will be characterized by increasingly tight-pursed corporate behavior and cautious consumer spending. That is not to say that it is his fault; on the contrary, I believe that his presidency has been plagued mostly by bad timing, the backlash downswing of our astronomical economic boom of the 1990’s, the separation of the men from the boys for the “dot com” industry, the “discouraging” events of Sept. 11th, etc. And that is how he is going to be remembered come election time in 2004, not as the presidency that restored our military supremacy after Clinton let it slack while our economy flourished. We forget quickly. Certainly if the Democrats can find any half-assed candidate to be the backbone of their comeback platform, people will be willing to put their faith in a new promise for restoring our lost economic glory days.
You're seeing that the media doesn't like Bush because they dont like anyone who has any conservative values. You'll find that we are not the simple people who say "hes the president, so I should follow him". Sorry, but we are not dolts here. At this point Bush will win the next election (assuming he runs and all) for no other reason then there isn't another worthy canidate being offered by the Democrats. Interestingly enough, I had a long talk with a buddy of mine today who is very conservative, about Bush, his stance on Iraq, and his chances of winning the next election.
First off, I think it is fair to say that those who support Al Qaeda and any other parties responsible for the Sept. 11th attacks represent a threat to our national security. Though I was hesitant about our strong military stance initially, I see now that it was the right choice to make. Be it as it may that Osama may very well still be at large, and planning new attacks, we have certainly fucked up his game significantly, and made it more difficult for him to proceed with his master plan, whatever it may be. However, I am not so sure about Iraq. It doesn’t seem likely that Saddam has had a hand in conjunction with the work of Al Qaeda and the Taliban in many of the terrorist attacks posed on US soil of late, as they themselves are really enemies.
When it comes to non-nuclear attacks, less direct “stealth” attacks on the US, again I don’t think we can single out Iraq. We have enemies tucked into every corner and lurking in every alley in the Middle East. Saddam serves as the biggest scapegoat, the most blatant threat among them at this point, but the problem spreads far beyond him. Besides, if I’m not mistaken, we are using the threat of nuclear weapons as our foot in the door for the disruption of Iraqi affairs, i.e. Saddam’s noncompliance with mandatory UN inspections. I don't want Saddam in power, I'd love to see him ousted, but is there enough evidence, not speculation, to support the notion of his purported vengeful attacked waiting to be hatched on the United States? Our best lead is the nukes... though maybe that's just what the contrived propaganda of the media would have us believe. But, if that's what we have to go on, it is certainly understandable that our intentions of removing Saddam and emplacing a Democratic government in Iraq may be most commonly viewed as bullish colonialism.
Is the reason to reinvade Iraq and remove Saddam from power nuclear weapons, or is it the ulterior motives? Let's face it, Saddam knows very well that if he's foolish enough to launch an atomic weapon at the US, his country and everyone in it will be bombed 10 times as hard. I don't know if that obscenely high security underground lair he had built still functions, and even if it did that it could survive the fallout from our retaliation. I won't argue that he is a mad and sick man (apparently he actually enjoys watching people being tortured), but I think that his motives for wanting to drop a nuke on us are not nearly as strong as some would believe. He is not suicidal, because that's what doing it would be. Naturally, it comes down to more than just the nukes. If it was just the nukes, why not target Pakistan, India, China? There is the Saddam factor (who did try to have George sr. assassinated, so George W.'s got that to be pissed about), but as many Middle East politics usually come down to, Bush's goal involves the oil that Iraq controls. As I said before, Bush, Cheney, hell practically the whole administration has their fingers in it.
As for Bush being re-elected, I’ll make it no less obvious than I already have that I want the man out of office. But I don’t really think its much of an issue. Even if he does reinvade Iraq, it will be another swift and easy victory, like it was a decade ago. It’s only a matter of time before Bush will run out of wars to fight. Then what will he be left with? A national economy that many fear will be characterized by increasingly tight-pursed corporate behavior and cautious consumer spending. That is not to say that it is his fault; on the contrary, I believe that his presidency has been plagued mostly by bad timing, the backlash downswing of our astronomical economic boom of the 1990’s, the separation of the men from the boys for the “dot com” industry, the “discouraging” events of Sept. 11th, etc. And that is how he is going to be remembered come election time in 2004, not as the presidency that restored our military supremacy after Clinton let it slack while our economy flourished. We forget quickly. Certainly if the Democrats can find any half-assed candidate to be the backbone of their comeback platform, people will be willing to put their faith in a new promise for restoring our lost economic glory days.
YogsVR4
10-10-2002, 10:31 AM
JD - that was pretty thoughtful. However, while there are many enemies who would like to do something awful to the US, only a few have the will and materials to help make that happen. Saddam is the pirmary on to make that happen.
----------
I am still amazed how many people think this is mostly about oil. A third of the companies Tangie had in that little picture get 0% yes NONE - not one drop of oil from the middle east. I'm not saying oil is not on their minds, but it would be stupid for it not to be. The industrialized world runs on it.
------
If the people of Iraq would take a minute from getting slaughtered by Saddam for being a different religion or disagreeing with him, they would probably ask the rest of us for some help.
----------
I am still amazed how many people think this is mostly about oil. A third of the companies Tangie had in that little picture get 0% yes NONE - not one drop of oil from the middle east. I'm not saying oil is not on their minds, but it would be stupid for it not to be. The industrialized world runs on it.
------
If the people of Iraq would take a minute from getting slaughtered by Saddam for being a different religion or disagreeing with him, they would probably ask the rest of us for some help.
JD@af
10-10-2002, 10:59 AM
In support of your new post, Yogs, I was also thinking this morning that when you get stung, rather than whip out the fly swatter and sit there cautiously, waiting to snuff out the next attack, it is good military self-defense to find the hornets’ nest and exterminate the problem at its source.
speediva
10-10-2002, 05:17 PM
I don't think we should be over there, period.
It's not our fight, and if anyone was smart we would have realized this DECADES ago.
It's not our fight, and if anyone was smart we would have realized this DECADES ago.
YogsVR4
10-10-2002, 11:13 PM
Originally posted by saturntangerine
I don't think we should be over there, period.
It's not our fight, and if anyone was smart we would have realized this DECADES ago.
So you believe we should be isolationists? Let everyone fend for themselves?
I don't think we should be over there, period.
It's not our fight, and if anyone was smart we would have realized this DECADES ago.
So you believe we should be isolationists? Let everyone fend for themselves?
Ssom
10-12-2002, 08:19 PM
Originally posted by YogsVR4
So you believe we should be isolationists? Let everyone fend for themselves?
Yeah....the crazy fucks will blow each-others heads off- then it's a case of race you to the oil Bushy :rolleyes:
Iraq is none of the US' business- if Saddam was going to attack teh US- it would have been done by now :rolleyes:
So you believe we should be isolationists? Let everyone fend for themselves?
Yeah....the crazy fucks will blow each-others heads off- then it's a case of race you to the oil Bushy :rolleyes:
Iraq is none of the US' business- if Saddam was going to attack teh US- it would have been done by now :rolleyes:
Damien
10-13-2002, 01:20 AM
Maybe he hasn't finish with all his weapons? I didn't watch it so....
But there is one thing, we know less than 2% at the most of what's really going on so, I just I'd mention that since I've learned some stuff I never that was true.
But there is one thing, we know less than 2% at the most of what's really going on so, I just I'd mention that since I've learned some stuff I never that was true.
YogsVR4
10-14-2002, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by Moss1O6GTi
Yeah....the crazy fucks will blow each-others heads off- then it's a case of race you to the oil Bushy :rolleyes:
Iraq is none of the US' business- if Saddam was going to attack the US- it would have been done by now :rolleyes: [/B][/QUOTE]
So if I understand you right, a guy comes walking up to you with a bloody ax and claiming he'll destroy you, you'll stand there until he swings before taking action to protect yourself. Good thinking.
Yeah....the crazy fucks will blow each-others heads off- then it's a case of race you to the oil Bushy :rolleyes:
Iraq is none of the US' business- if Saddam was going to attack the US- it would have been done by now :rolleyes: [/B][/QUOTE]
So if I understand you right, a guy comes walking up to you with a bloody ax and claiming he'll destroy you, you'll stand there until he swings before taking action to protect yourself. Good thinking.
jsb88
11-01-2002, 12:19 PM
his father wants him to do this... and we never disobey daddy do we?
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2026