Bush Speech Thread

[Caesar the Great]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


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?

When you have an army/airforce/navy powerful enough to conquer the world and a nuclear arsenal powerful enough to destroy the world several times over, you can have it both ways.

Its like that disarmament thing which was the beginning of the end of the League of Nations..... its a great idea, you can get rid of as many weapons as you want, but we won't.

Theres no way the US could be objectively judged in any international court, too much anti-US sentiment across the world. Anyway, why should ghana or sri lanka play any significant part in shaping US policy.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

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?

Who needs it both ways. "International law" is an oxymoron. Its not a matter of his developing the weapons, its a question of whether he's a threat to us now or will become one. If you accept that he is a threat, then we should strike now before he can hit us first.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
You can't have it both ways.

That's funny becayse we do have it both ways. We say what we please, and nobody can do anything to stop us.

Watch as we defy world opinion and invade a country that isn't an immediate threat to us. Then watch and see who has the cajones to do anything about it. Face it, China, Russia, France, they're all has-beens. American dominance isn't permanant, but we don't care. We'll have our fun while it lasts.

[Inverse Icarus]

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.

nuh hunh. the UN has rules / proceedures to go about forcibly removing dictators that jepordize the lives of their own people or the international community.

face it. the UN has had it's time and place, and now it's time to destroy him. I honestly can't see howanyone can support saddam.

i can see how people can oppose war in general. and if you want to believe that, good, have fun in your little fairytale world where no one does anything to harm anyone else for any reason, flowers never wilt, and everyone sings every night as one world.

[monkspider]

Immerz- I am certain that Bush would eventually invade sometime down the line, possibly in a few months. Likely for reasons of so-called "Al Queda infiltration" or something equally Orwellian. Sadaam calling Bush's bluff would only delay things by a few months at most. Laws of geopolitical inertia combined with Bush's expansionist policies could not stop war even if Sadaam folded and the new Iraqi leader outlawed all weapons of any sort and made love and happiness the law of the land. Bush has unleashed a hurricane that perhaps only God himself could stop.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Lincoln


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.

Who are the people of Iraq? Do you honestly think we are going to give Shiites complete freedom of speech, religious association, and majority political control? (since they're a majority of the population, and "secular" only because Saddam has purged most Shiite religious elements).

How about the Kurds? How much autonomy will they be given? Any more than the tightly constrained box they're allowed now under the nexus of the NNFZ? "The people of Iraq" is a rather more complex regional sociopolitical issue than most would like to believe, especially in a pseudo-country that has existed even in name for less than a century and which has never had any semblance of democratic rule.

It's got a lot less to do with hatred of Bush, than appreciation of the enormously convoluted power politics of the region, and our historical lack of sophistication in dealing with it.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Frogger
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).

Iraq without Saddam, and no occupation either, could get real messy, real fast.

If Saddam leaves, the Yanks will most likely give the Iraqi army 24 hours to prepare to hand over bases and disarm.

[raghar]

It's interesting Bush said 48 hours. Australien goverment said Iraqui diplomats should be kicked out till sunday. They should talk with each other, really.
And Bush would come for his 100 billion $ shortly.

http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswire/2003/03/17/rtr909628.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2859225.stm

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030317-055105-3439r

[Sava]

DL do the DL party!

[SpencerH]

Look at the problem we face with North Korea i.e. a tin-pot dictator with nukes. Do we really need any more such situations in the world? Whats next, should we sit back and allow an ******* like Mugabe to build what he wants while the French veto any attempts to stop him.

[Nubclear]

America has become the Nazi-Germany for the modern era......

Therefore as of today, all my american flags have been properly dealt with

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Who are the people of Iraq?

The people who live in Iraq. And I hope we don't give them anything. The oppressive sanctions will be lifted though, no doubt, and they will have a new chance to screw up their country again if they like. I say, a change can be as good as a rest. Let's see what happens next.

[Felch]

Sava, I'm pretty sure raghar is legit.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000


America has become the Nazi-Germany for the modern era......

Therefore as of today, all my american flags have been properly dealt with

alright, just go back to russia and shut up now. if you really love russia so much, and hate america with enough passion to compare it to a tolitarian regime bent on genocide, we don't really want you here. thank you.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Iraq without Saddam, and no occupation either, could get real messy, real fast.

If Saddam leaves, the Yanks will most likely give the Iraqi army 24 hours to prepare to hand over bases and disarm.

I'm not arguing about the necessity of this; I just find it fairly strange that several people here think that the US would pack up and leave if Saddam exiled himself, when their own Secretary of State has said the exact opposite.