Bush Speech Thread

[KrazyHorse]

You're on a bit of a hair trigger, now aren't you.

[Ming]

Originally posted by faded glory
You wouldnt!?

If you keep it up, you will be the first "poster boy" to show other people that we aren't going to put up with this kind of crap during the next few weeks.

[Sava]

I agree with you Troll but...

Shame, but an aggressive act such as President Bush is leading, is exactly what the Terrorists need to show them that we are lying down and taken it anymore!

That's exactly what Osama is telling his d1ckless followers.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Frogger
You're on a bit of a hair trigger, now aren't you.

You're damn right. So don't make me pull the trigger on you. Again, we aren't going to be putting up with crap.

You will behave, or you won't be posting.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I have come to the conclusion that this war has nothing to do with terror, and everything to do with hegemonic assertion. So Sadaam has little to do with the equation, other than to provide a conveinant demon to rally the American people around. If you disagree, then I'm afraid we have simply reached an impasse my friend.

I disagree 100% and think you've missed the boat. I believe this war has to do with US interests, but hegemonic assertion isn't it.

exactly.

let me make an analogy that'll probably get flamed by someone.

some guy walks up to you and says, "if i had a gun, i'd blow your f*cking head off".

he then starts looking for a gun (or, developing a projectile weapon of some sort).

you'd get the f*cker arrested for assault, right? you'd call the cops and wait for them to arrest him / rectify the suitation. before he got the gun with which he threatened to shoot you.

so the cops show up but do nothing for 12 years, while this dude continues to build a gun, saying things like "i think you should check over there!", and "sorry, you can't check my garage right now, get the hell out."

he's going to get a gun and blow your f*cking head off.

so, do you let the bumbling cops keep trying? maybe your neighbors want you to. or do you do what you have to do for the interest of self preservation, and beat the guy senseless, until he dies or runs the hell away.

it's the same concept with large scale implications.

saddam has biological and chemical weapons. he's used them in the past. he's working on nukes. he's said on several occasions, if he could nuke the US he would.

he's a f*cking sh*tlord ruling a country that supports him as long as the AKs are aimed at their heads.

we'll see how the Iraqis feel after the war is over. if they still support saddam and loathe america after he is deposed, well f*ck, we tried to help the people.

[faded glory]

Ya ok Ming. Ill watch myself this time. I still dont think you should ban me during a war. You know when I did the clinton impersonation a few years ago you permabanned my old account.

[Drake Tungsten]

Since when is peacekeeping accomplished without the consent of those who have the peacekeepers watching over them?

It's happened before. Who gave consent for UN peacekeeping operations in Bosnia?

Jesus. Is English your first language, Drake?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
It's happened before. Who gave consent for UN peacekeeping operations in Bosnia?

As far as I can recall, nobody (though I may be wrong on this, given that it happened when I was 13).

And IIRC, most of the operations were simply observation. There were very few operations in which the "peacekeepers" were used to disarm and disband local forces. They were more fond of retreating in the face of any opposition because they did not have a peacemaking mandate.

[Sava]

Ming: I'm being pretty good I think, huh Ming? Despite being attacked twice so far Can I still insult the terrorists? Is that okay?

In my attempted formation of a "profile" of Bush, I've postulated many things. IMO, he does think he's acting in America's best interests. I think Iraq was on the agenda even before 9-11, but the attacks vindicated his suspicions that Saddam needs to go. It's like when a murder detective knows a guy is guilty and doesn't have enough evidence. It still doesn't justify Bush's fabricated evidence, or his use of years' old weapons data on Iraq. But I just think he truly believes Saddam is a threat and needs to be removed as soon as possible. I agree Saddam is bad, but I don't see him as a threat to America. I object to the war because I think it's a terrible misappropriation of personel and funds. Killing Saddam stops Saddam from supporting terrorist acts against the US, but it doesn't stop other terrorists from attacking us. I still think we're just as vulnerable to attack as we were on 9-10-01. I don't mean to get side-tracked, but I have to wonder how much Bush is really trying to improve security when he's giving 100 billion in tax cuts to the rich, while only 41 billion to homeland security.

I also think that the American public isn't being given all the necessary information. There are morons on the left and on the right who are muddling up such discussions with their own stupidity.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Felch X
For after the war

If America doesn't claim Iraq's oil, will the leftists who claimed it was all for oil admit that they were full of ****?

And if America does go back on its promise, will the hawk do likewise?

I think this is important. People have said a lot of things, and I'm tired of folks forgetting all the nasty horrible things they said once they were proven wrong. I remember a lot of doves were saying that Afghanistan would be a bloodbath for the Americans, and were wrong. Did they ever admit it?

Oil is a tougher thing than bloodbaths - that's easy to quantify the results, or lack thereof.

"Taking" oil, or getting cutesy contracts for it, is so passé. Oil is a globally supplied commodity, with a fairly tight balance of supply and demand, so you don't need to "take" it physically in any way to profit enormously, or to lose your ass (or gain huge leverage on everyone else's economy among the industrialized and oil producing nations, which is most of the world). Just having the power, directly or indirectly, to tweak that supply and demand balance can have a huge effect, and is a huge amount of strategic power.

[Drake Tungsten]

As far as I can recall, nobody

That kind of ruins your point then, unless you want to argue that UN operations in Bosnia were an invasion...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ming


If you keep it up, you will be the first "poster boy" to show other people that we aren't going to put up with this kind of crap during the next few weeks.

We need to make an example of someone, Ming - let's just pick one and get it over with.

[Ming]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
We need to make an example of someone, Ming - let's just pick one and get it over with.

Don't worry... somebody will "sign" up quick. It never fails in situations like this.

But I like your thinking on this

[Sava]

The UN operations in Bosnia and Kosovo were cowardly bombing attacks... not a ground invasion.

As for people who say this war is solely about oil... why bother arguing with such stupid people, huh Felch X? Again... prove your point, don't worry about pointing out how stupid others are. Chances are, most people recognize their ignorance also.

There are always going to be retards and flamers on both sides of an issue. I've been one on many occasions, and probably still am I'm at least trying to make an attempt to be a reasonable and mature debater.

[ThePlagueRat]

Now the retorics in Washington are ranting about ending a dictatorship.


Why did not USA condemn the Chilean abduction of civilians during the regime of dictator Pinochet? Do people forget so soon?