Bush Speech Thread

[Az]

Edited by Ming...

Next time, put it in English... or you will be restricted.

[Ellestar]

Edited by Ming...

Next time, put it in English... or you will be restricted.

[Spiffor]

I know it is very tempting to use your language when you encounter a fellow speaking the same language, but please include a translation in English below. It will have much educational value for those of us who are interested in languages. Thanks

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I know it is very tempting to use your language when you encounter a fellow speaking the same language, but please include a translation in English below. It will have much educational value for those of us who are interested in languages. Thanks

[Sava]

resisting urge to swear in Russian

[Ming]

Originally posted by Sava
resisting urge to swear in Russian

A wise idea...

[Az]

Ellestar: eto tipa takoi ritual. Kajdi raz kogda novichok pribvayet v "Off-Topic", mi yego nazivayem "DL", is sovershayem ritualni tanez. "DL" oboznaochayet dvoynoi schet, yakobi kakoyto drugoy chlen foruma zapisivayetsya yeche raz, dlya togo shotbi sozdat yeche odnu lichnost, ( Vosnovnom dlya togo shtobi nadela shorohu ).

Vosnovnom mi eto v shutku.



Translation ( for spiffor ) :


Ellestar: this is a ritual, of sorts. Everytime a newbie arrives in the Off-Topic, we call him a DL, and start a ritual dance. DL means Double Login, supposedly some other forum member signs up another time, to create another identity. ( usually to make some noise ).

Generally, It's just a joke.

[Dis]

we need a war thread.

FoxNews are reporting Iraqi troops are tyring to surrender again. But we can't take them. Of course they are all up north, we aren't anywhere close yet.

[orange]

Wow, Poly is just too fast for me now a days

Ming et al. it's probably been answered (I saw MtG give an explanation, and he's far more qualified than I am) but my reasoning is pretty much the same. We won't trust whoever is going to replace him, unless it's one of our guys, and we won't leave the area for a long time even if that is the case. Not to mention that Powell and others have made it clear - we're going in. Whether that be peacefully or with force, we're going in.

[ThePlagueRat]

Will Iraq experience the Palestine-effect after Saddam is removed and USA has installed a puppet government?
I guess there will be certain amount of jihad against the occupants.

The puppet govt. will probably be dealt with as one enemy of this jihad. History can tell us that, so we can foresee decades of violence and terror in Iraq if the US invades.
This might also aggrevate terror against innocent and peaceloving western nations who did all they could to prevent it.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I don't know if there will be war or not if Saddam leaves. I'm oriented towards thinking there will be no war, but only some localized clashes with the few troops that'll remain loyal to Saddam, and some radical Kurds / Shiites.

If Saddam leaves, the US and the Bushies would have reached almost all its objectives :
- getting rid of the former puppet regime to install a new one
- legitimizing this whole charade, Bush would earn a huge support in the US population
- prove that the US still is the boss
- have a reliable supply of oil in prediction of the incoming tensions with Saudi Arabia (must finish these massive financing to terrorists)
- prove the chickenhawks were right, and that a big gun is more efficient than words.


However, two goals would have been left unfulfilled :
- explicitely showing the superiority of the US army on the field
- Have a full scale training, with the chance it provides to develop new strategies, and to see how those already thought are working : you rarely have the opportunity to wage a real war against a harmless enemy.

For these last two reasons, it is possible the Hawks find another pretext to declare war anyway, but that would be terrible for their image even among the US population and expansive, so it is unlikely.

However, it is obvious the US is going to invade. This here post was wondering if the US would invade all guns blazing or not, if Saddam leaves.

I agree, well written

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Ned


Kman, I was thinking the same thing as you what you just said. According to the news reports last night, Saddam was given a 45 days to disarmin 1991. He failed to "fully" cooperate. This led to 12 years of cat and mouse games in this "benign" dictator. I believe Bush still had the bulk of the forces in place at the 45 day deadline. He could have resumed the hostilities then there. He should have. I wonder why he didn't?

actually it led to 7 years of cat and mouse games and 5 years of Saddam living in near virtual freedom... while this first satge was happening i was furious that the US was allowing it to drag on, why we were not putting an end to it. When the second stage began, i was dumbfounded by Clinton's extremely weak response of a few scattered cruise missile attacks.

After the 45 day deadline, Bush should have done somethn. After the inspectors were expelled in '98, Clinton should have done something along the lines of what Bush is doing now. 5 years after Saddam obtained free reign, Bush II is finally doing something.

I wonder too, but I suppose in hindsight everything is much clearer...

[Ned]

Originally posted by ThePlagueRat
Will Iraq experience the Palestine-effect after Saddam is removed and USA has installed a puppet government?
I guess there will be certain amount of jihad against the occupants.

The puppet govt. will probably be dealt with as one enemy of this jihad. History can tell us that, so we can foresee decades of violence and terror in Iraq if the US invades.
This might also aggrevate terror against innocent and peaceloving western nations who did all they could to prevent it.

I don't think we are going to simply install a puppet government. They think we're going to provide for elections. I also think we will do this at the earliest possible date. Perhaps within months, not years. It all depends on the level of chaos.

It is interesting to note that the UN did not provide for elections in Korea until 1948, nearly three years after World War II ended.

[Ned]

Kramerman, I wonder if Bush II can be objective in criticizing his Dad. Obviously, he cannot criticize Clinton on Iraq without also criticizing his Dad. Both are responsible, in part, for the mess we are in today.

I recall that, at the time, I thought it was good at a good idea to not take out Saddam, but the leave him in power as a buffer against Iran. However I did not count on Saddam, playing games with the disarmament program, the no-fly zones and continuing US involvement so many years later. Had I known in this at the time, I would have been among those Americans insisting that the war be renewed.

Hindsight? Monday morning quarterback? Clearly, both Republicans and Democrats share responsibility for what happened. Thank God that we elected George Bush and not Al Gore. If Al Gore had been elected, I can guarantee you that Saddam problem would not have been resolved during his administration, which may have extended to 2009. This is quite sufficient time for Saddam to acquire nuclear weapons and to threaten to use them to first force us to leave Kuwait and then to prevent a Desert Storm II when he later conquered Kuwait for a second time. Yes, Al Gore turned out to be an appeaser.

[muxec]

Bush is right. The 1441th resolution is just playing hide and seek. Saddam do have WoMD and may it use.

The most progressive countries support Bush. Even Japanese prime minister said that ultimatum is right responce on Saddam's behaivor.