Bush Speech Thread

[Sava]

I posted this elsewhere, but it's relevant here.

Saddam is bad and I wouldn't hesitate to put a bullet in his brain. But he isn't going to threaten the US in a military fashion. And if it's even remotely possible that he'll supply terrorists, we need to beef up internal security because attacking Saddam won't stop other confirmed terrorists. This war is a gross misallocation of military, economic, and human resources. While we're off fighting a war in some stupid country that can't threaten us, a terrorist cell is operating somewhere in the US. And going after Iraq will no doubt inflame future terrorists. And by going after Iraq without UN approval, the US will shoulder all of the blame if something goes wrong. At least with UN approval and cooperation, we could have a scapegoat. But noooo, Bush is wagering what little credibility the US has on his stupid little war. I just hope that our troops succeed quickly and with minimal casualties.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ned


Mr. Fun, you cannot seriously be against the basic principle that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend." After all, we allied with Stalin, Mao and Chang, all in their own way despicable, to defeat a larger menace. Surely you understand this from the WWII context?

Americans are sometime sickened by the company we have to keep. So sickened that in 1975, Senator Church lead the charge to forbid the CIA from using unsavory characters for intelligence. All this did was lead to 9/11 due to lack of human intelligence. In retrospect, what Church did harmed United States.

I don't know what would happen in the world had we not conducted our foreign-policy the way we did. But the fear at the time was that the Communists would take over the entire world and kill us. An overly particular foreign-policy with respect to allies surely would have contributed to a Communist victory.

But simply saying that we supported unsavory characters without placing it fully in context is unfair. But the left could care less about being fair when it comes to United States.

How close were we allied with Stalin's Soviet Union during World War II? We ended up racing against him for control over parts of Germany, and we nuked Japan so we could defeat Japan before the Soviet Union could force surrendure over Japan.

In almost all cases, I really cannot see the justification for allying ourselves with dictators who have committed crimes against humanity to achieve our goals.

[KrazyHorse]

and we nuked Japan so we could defeat Japan before the Soviet Union could force surrendure over Japan

What history books have you been reading?

[muxec]

Nuking Japan saved the world. It showed to the world the nuclear danger and prevented Soviet-USA war at 1965.

[carnide_]

I dont like Bush, but the speech was excellent!
Anyone has a clue about who actually wrote it?

[Ned]

Frogger, MrFun's statement is very typical of Americans who have grown up and were educated in America's public school system, where propaganda is often taught instead of history. I don't know the particulars of MrFun's education. But I believe, from reading this post that he was educated in our public school system.

A good percentage of the American population actively hates the United States because of its "evil" deeds. If even half what they believe in were actually true, I too would be anti-American. However, I actually lived through much of the history they know only from history books and know the truth.

In the war against communism, we often looked the other way when our "boy" turned out to be a brutal, killing dictator. The Shah of Iran as a good example. He was our "boy," but he killed thousands of Iranians to stay in power. But, what were we to do? Force him out of office? That is exactly what we ended up doing.

It is good that their forums like Apolyton for people of both the left and right to debate issues. At times, I find myself educated about what I read here. I only hope the left feels the same way about some of the things I and other conservatives say in these debates.

[KrazyHorse]

Your grasp of historical facts is much lower than Mr Fun's, so don't try to take the opportunity to jab at the "liberal" public education system

I highly doubt this is what he was taught in public school.

[Sava]

Well said Frogger.

[KrazyHorse]

For Mr. Fun:

The Russians weren't about to conquer the Japanese islands. They'd had to be bribed into declaring war on them in the first place, and only did so in 1945. They fought a few minor engagements, but nothing of a scale to bring the Pacific War to a close.

Nuking Japan might have had something to do with the Russians, but it wasn't to prevent them from capturing Japan. More like a warning...

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Frogger
For Mr. Fun:

The Russians weren't about to conquer the Japanese islands. They'd had to be bribed into declaring war on them in the first place, and only did so in 1945. They fought a few minor engagements, but nothing of a scale to bring the Pacific War to a close.

Nuking Japan might have had something to do with the Russians, but it wasn't to prevent them from capturing Japan. More like a warning...

Wasn't nuking Japan about Truman not wanting to risk a half-million American casualties in an invasion of the mainland?

[Lord Merciless]

Americans should stop self-loathing and being masochist.

[KrazyHorse]

"might have had something to do with", not "was motivated entirely by"

Ending the war relatively painlessly for the US was, of course, the primary concern.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by muxec
Nuking Japan saved the world. It showed to the world the nuclear danger and prevented Soviet-USA war at 1965.

This is true. If it werent for nuclear weapons, ironically, I believe there WOULD have been a 3rd world war. But the fear of nuclear reprisal kept open and direct hostilities between the major enemies at bay. As a consequence, tho, more covert hostilities took place and the subsequent US backing of bastard governments for the sole sake of influence.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by ThePlagueRat
Muxec, pres.Bush also have WoMD and should be sanctioned by UN and its weapons inspector. Hmm, why does it never happen?!


In fact pres.Truman ordered their use of nukes in 1945. More than 200.000 civilians killed and many more mutilated for generations. See that old footage of burnt babies and cry.
Truman and his US-generals was responsible for mass genocide!
He should been captured and prosecuted just as we did to Milosevic. But no suprise... neither did that happen.

The only nation who did ever nuke another is still USA.
Has the japanese prime minister forgotten the sad parts of his nation's history? What is this world thinking about allowing the unpredictable USA to carry WoMD?

Bush doesnt have WoMD, the US does. We can have them because we are a stable democracy that has a stated national doctrine to never preempt the use of nukes. Kim Jong Il, who controsl the WoMD in his country doesnt have such a doctrine, nor does Saddam Hussein. They are unstable, and potentially as is their regimes. Also they are our enemies, and if they can potentially prempt a strike against us or an ally, then that makes them a grave and dire threat, that must be dealt with.

Comparing the US's use of nukes in WWII to genocide is the ramblings of an utter moron. This has been said a million times, but I will say it again. Japan's cultural mentality was not to surrender. The Japanese populace vowed to fight to the death for their emperor. That was 90 million Japsanese at the time. Estimates are around 500,000 US casualties for an invasion. However the use of 2 nukes saved all those American lives, and broke the Japanese spirit to fight, saving practically the entire populace of Japan from dying in a horribbly bloody and drawn out war.

[Alexander's Horse]

I always find his speeches unconvincing. The reason is he looks like he doesn't understand what he's reading out, like he's never seen it before, like he was just some guy dragged off the street to read out a speech prepared by others.