Bush Address To United Nations

[Agathon]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Since Cuba is such a big concern to so many here

And your darling GWB who considers them an "Axis of Evil"

[Kuciwalker]

Ummm, no. The Axis of Evil is (was) Iraq, Iran, North Korea.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Why not drop the sanctions outright, and than insist on the Un inspectors returning?

The sanctions are based on the assumptions that Iraq has NBC weapons. To lift the sanctions, therefore, UN needs to verify that Iraq doesn't have any. What good would the inspectors do after the sanctions have been lifted?

[Spiffor]

They'll actively look for WMDs for their destruction without the unneeded starvation of the Iraqi population ?

[Urban Ranger]

There's the "Oil for Food" programme.

The US even wants to control this programme itself.

[Felch]

Cuba is like Alcatraz was. You live there for a crime (being Cuban in this case). They give you free health care. They give you something to do, either cut sugar cane or crush rocks. They provide free education. You have no choice over who runs your life. And if you try to leave they shoot you.

[DinoDoc]

Why is this being brought up now?

Originally posted by Agathon
It's more like recently cracked down on US sponsored dissenters who want to make Cuba into an American mudpatch. Given the fact that the US has waged a dirty war against Cuba for 40 years I'd suggest that Fidel is in the right here. The Cuban people are free - free of US influence. And that's a freedom worth having.

And gee wouldn't free elections and free speech US style be great. I mean, everyone wants their elections bought by corporations and FOX news is so wonderful.

Oaf.

I will so this though. This little patch of idiocy made it worth while.

[Alexander's Horse]

Re: Bush Address To United Nations

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Again, let me ask, why have the "radical liberals" stopped laughing?

We haven't stopped laughing. Where did you get the idea we had?

The only pause in the "laugh and point" has been the casualties.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Would the Cubans be better off under Castro or another US supported Batista like regime, since these are the only realistic options?

A. Those aren't the only realistic options.

B. Batista over Castro.

[JCG]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui A. Those aren't the only realistic options.

B. Batista over Castro.

'nuff said I guess....

[realpolitic]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by SlowwHand

Bush was elected,

Not on this planet - and the guy he put in charge of inforcing laws lost an election to a dead guy.

[SlowwHand]

Can you at least dry the snot off your face, if you must continue sobbing?

Since the thread keeps popping up, what about last night's address?
Bush said it again. Wherever the terrorosts are, and whoever gives them shelter.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Since the thread keeps popping up, what about last night's address?
Bush said it again. Wherever the terrorosts are, and whoever gives them shelter.

I would say that is a smart move, for now. If Bush can manage to destroy the ties between States and terrorists through fear only, that would be a big achievement.
If he actually goes to war or actively prepare it in the future, it will completely suck : the destruction of ties between terrorism and states can be done through soft or hard diplomacy.

[LDiCesare]

mmm... Popping in to ask a few silly questions:
"Whoever" includes people like many Pakistani, but (maybe) not the Pakistani government, which happens to have problems keeping its own country peaceful. Any idea how the U.S. (or anyone else) can handle that? Considering the guy who gave nukes to that country is a muslim extremist, for instance.
I mean, can the U.S. do what Bush said? They can blast a dictator who controls his own country because you can behead the organisation, but how do you think you can manage a country which is supposedly helping in the fight but is unable to even protect its leader in some of its cities for fear of terrorists?