Bush Speech Thread

[Caesar the Great]

My biggest problem is why do we wait until now to declare war? We know he wants to develop weapons of mass destruction, we know he is willing to use them, why allow him to develop any capabilities? The second he kicked the inspectors out we should have threatened retalliation, he attacked Kuwait, he lost the war, why should we play his game? As long as inspectors are in his country it significantly limits his offense capabilities, but as soon as they are removed he is free to do whatever he wants.

Why have we waited not days, not weeks, not months but years for action to be taken against him? There is a place for diplomacy, but what has happened the past several years is not diplomacy, it is appeasement.

My only hope is that the Iraqi army can see that they have no way of winning the war and surrender. The Iraqi's shouldn't have to pay the price for their dictator's actions.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I really wonder about all these people that say even if Saddam leaves, we'll invade. Are these posters really serious?

[Drake Tungsten]

Why have we waited not days, not weeks, not months but years for action to be taken against him?

Clinton, the best European president we ever had. Jimmy Carter, of course, being the worst...

[Urban Ranger]

The conclusion from that is clear. The so called "WoMD" is merely a pretext.

[Caesar the Great]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
AFAIK, what GWB did - demanding a regime change - is illegal. That is, it violates international law. If you support this, you don't have a defensible position in accusing Iraq.

With a defense budget astrominically beyond that of any nation, the US is above international law. We can't trust anyone to protect our interests - nor do we want the French in charge of ANYTHING

[Drake Tungsten]

I really wonder about all these people that say even if Saddam leaves, we'll invade. Are these posters really serious?

It's really sad, isn't it?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ming
I'm not sure we would... If Saddam and his sons leave, and a new government takes over that his not just his cronies... Bush could look brilliant by saying... IT WORKED. And then make fun of the rest of the world saying their approach didn't work, and his did... without firing a shot.

That would be a bit problematic. First thing, it becomes very hard to define "not his cronies" since there's no real political organization in Iraq that isn't just a rubber stamp for Saddam's rule.

Even if one pretended to show up, there's all sorts of wiggle room about calling for an end to sanctions, rolling of eyes and shuffling of feet, talking about disarmament and putting up memorials to Bush, and then as soon as the US goes home, either that "government" changes it's mind, or else an IRG-Baathist led coup establishes a new thugocracy.

The US would have a real problem if Saddam actually steps aside, because their wouldn't be much choice about either going in anyway, or maintaining troops in the field for months and watching.

[Richelieu]

So no one is going to comment about the "don't burn your oilfields" bit ?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Caesar the Great
With a defense budget astrominically beyond that of any nation, the US is above international law. We can't trust anyone to protect our interests - nor do we want the French in charge of ANYTHING

You can't have it both ways. Either you hold that every nation must abide the international law, or you hold that national interests are above international law. If you hold the former, you will be compelled to condemn Duyba for violating international law. If you hold the latter, where is your ground in accusing Saddam Hussein of developing CBN weapons?

[Caesar the Great]

Even if Saddam steps aside we probably will just claim its a hoax and go in anyway and install a pro-US government (which always turn out great for everyone!)

The whole situation is a mess, at this point it would be too expensive not to go to war.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I really wonder about all these people that say even if Saddam leaves, we'll invade. Are these posters really serious?

Yes, I am.

Think about it - Saddam pulls off a sham and leaves, the US leaves (after a months long buildup that has cost billions) and the new regime starts playing games, insisting that it shouldn't pay reparations to Kuwait, that food for oil should be expanded, or sanctions ended since it's a sunny new day in Baghdad.

The room for a new regime to scam everybody is great - or else the US can just sit there for more months, getting into the summer season when the weather will play hell with our troops' combat effectiveness.

Besides, who the hell would constitute a new government?

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I really wonder about all these people that say even if Saddam leaves, we'll invade. Are these posters really serious?

As much as I respect the views of some here from the left wing I am afraid that they are presently obsessed in their hatred for Bush. They will get over it when the people of Iraq are free and the sanctions are lifted and they have hope. The left is supposed to be motivated by compassion and I respect that. But this diversion into irrational hatred toward one man leads to the insane conclusions posted here.

[Ming]

I don't think the US would leave until AFTER the government proved it wasn't a Sadam Sham...

Because you are right MtG... it cost a bundle to put the troops in place. They aren't leaving until Bush is sure that Sadam is truely gone.

[KrazyHorse]

Powell has said the US was invading no matter what. Why is this unbelievable?

The only difference is that with Saddam gone the invasion would be unopposed; what he called "the peaceful application of force" (I'm paraphrasing, since I do not recall the exact words).

[Drake Tungsten]

Well said, Lincoln. You've expressed my feelings on the matter very well...