Originally posted by: SlowSS
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I was watching O'Riely and Gary Hart was on. He sounded as confused as can be.
The problem with Bush is that he couldn't sell a glass of Ice Cold Lemonade to a man dying of thirst.
Yeah but Clinton would of stolen a shirt from a dying man.
Originally posted by: rbloedow
Originally posted by: Bluga
Bush is just a warhog. There's no connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
And your a pansy. I think the point he was trying to make is that we don't want another 9/11 on our hands, especially with someone as powerful as Sadam. He needs to be removed from power, and any fvcking nimrod who doesn't think so should be bitch slapped. Inspections aren't going to work, and that has been PROVEN. I don't know what fvcking cloud France, German, and all the stupid protestors have been living on - Giving that fvcker more time is useless. The easiest way to remove him is to do it ourselves since nobody else seems to have the balls to do so.
Originally posted by: rbloedow
Originally posted by: Bluga
Bush is just a warhog. There's no connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
And your a pansy. I think the point he was trying to make is that we don't want another 9/11 on our hands, especially with someone as powerful as Sadam. He needs to be removed from power, and any fvcking nimrod who doesn't think so should be bitch slapped. Inspections aren't going to work, and that has been PROVEN. I don't know what fvcking cloud France, German, and all the stupid protestors have been living on - Giving that fvcker more time is useless. The easiest way to remove him is to do it ourselves since nobody else seems to have the balls to do so.
Originally posted by: Infos
"It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam." -W from tonight
For god's sake, he couldn't have chosen a better metaphor than that?
:disgust:
Originally posted by: SnapIT
Do you have any knowledge of what did create 9/11, could it be the US involvment in the middle east, especially in Saudi Arabia, an involvement that forced a man out of that country?
Ohhhh... you think that MORE involvment will cause fewer attacks? kinda like how if the Israelis invade more of palestine, the attacks get's less?
Even you cannot be so stupid... not even you...
OF FVCKING COURSE TERRORIST ATTACKS WILL INCREASE...
Originally posted by: NightTrain
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Do I want Saddam to have these weapons? No. I do not want a lot of things. What am I prepared to do to get rid of those things I do not like? Well what I don't choose is this bloody war to be. Diplomatically, this was handled in an astoundingly bad way.
You want to forcefully remove his weapons and just not call it a war. You're out of touch with reality. No amount of "diplomacy" will change that.
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: NightTrain
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Do I want Saddam to have these weapons? No. I do not want a lot of things. What am I prepared to do to get rid of those things I do not like? Well what I don't choose is this bloody war to be. Diplomatically, this was handled in an astoundingly bad way.
You want to forcefully remove his weapons and just not call it a war. You're out of touch with reality. No amount of "diplomacy" will change that.
No.
The Pentagon was remarkably frank about war plans. They intend to heavily bomb Baghdad for the first 48 hours or so. Now that is war. If Bush was determined to make Saddam toothless with a military solution, why not take out his planes? Bases? The US has enough might to be selective. Do I advocate that? Not really, but if given a choice between bombing a city with a size between Chicago and NYC, and removing his military bases, I would do the latter. That could at least have been tried.
I tired of hearing people bitch about not going to war when they have no working solution themselves - it's obvious that you're oblivious to the facts and your own opinion/ignorance is clouding your sight.
He needs to be removed from power, and any fvcking nimrod who doesn't think so should be bitch slapped. Inspections aren't going to work, and that has been PROVEN. I don't know what fvcking cloud France, German, and all the stupid protestors have been living on - Giving that fvcker more time is useless. The easiest way to remove him is to do it ourselves since nobody else seems to have the balls to do so.
Bombing Baghdad is war and bombing bases is not. You split the finest hairs just be contrary.
When police want to arrest someone, they do not shoot them and then cuff the perp. There are levels of restraint. Bush wants to shoot.
The Pentagon was remarkably frank about war plans. They intend to heavily bomb Baghdad for the first 48 hours or so. Now that is war. If Bush was determined to make Saddam toothless with a military solution, why not take out his planes? Bases? The US has enough might to be selective. Do I advocate that? Not really, but if given a choice between bombing a city with a size between Chicago and NYC, and removing his military bases, I would do the latter. That could at least have been tried.
A) if that perp has a weapon drawn on an officer hell yes they shoot first. i.e. Saddam has WMD that he is not suppossed to have acording to the treaty THAT HE (his goverment) signed. He refuses to get rid of them.
B) I take it from the last part of that statement what you mean is that Bush wants to shoot first and ask questions later. What the hell have the last 12 or so years been?
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: MrChicken
I watched the whole thing.
What I saw was a President that stands firm in his belief that he is going to protect the US. It was obvious that he was upset personally over 9/11, not just lip biting for votes. He doesnt care about polls, he doesnt care about getting re-elected, what he cares about is protecting the US from having an Iraqi made WMD going off in the US.
We saw a president who was clueless about why the majority of the U.N. was against immediate war and why millions upon millions of protestors world-wide might also think it's a bad idea. He was asked 4 different questions about world opinion and he ducked each and every one. Bush should care equally about a North Korean WMD going off in America. He doesn't. Iraq is obviously a personal crusade for Bush.
The guy you call a moron answered more hard line hostile questions about a situation tougher to handle, in one night, than any other President I can remember. The safety of the US and maybe the world is at stake, he really cares about the troops he is sending into combat and the civilians in Iraq, and he does not care what millions of protestors say against it. He only flat refused to answer 1 question the whole night, about whether the war would be a failure with the capture of Saddam. He didnt answer a couple of questions because some of the reporters tried ask several questions at one time, which they all know is a no-no because it takes time away from the other reporters.
He dodged more questions and forgot the two-parters so much it was downright awkward. We got no new information from Bush tonight. It's the same old story: Stay on script, hit the key cliches (e.g. 9/11, regime change, etc). Bush only barely held it together because every response was so heavily scripted.
He made a great case for the UN. Plainly put, he said they must back up their resolutions. He is giving the UN a chance to regain a position of authority by following through on their resolution(s). The US does not need the UN for this, but Bush wants the UN to step up. he knows that if they dont act now, nobody will ever listen to them ever again simply because they lack the resolve to do anything. Bosnia ring a bell?
Yes, we're going to enforce international law by ignoring international law. Bush logic: to have peace, we must have war. To save lives, we must kill Iraqis. It makes absolutely no sense. Why don't we make the UN enforce the dozen or so resolutions concerning Isreal and its occupation of Palestinean lands? No wonder the whole world thinks we're a bunch of hypocrites...
Has not anybody out there noticed how Bush flatly refuses to insult those that disagree with him? He doesnt sling mud at the Democrats, certainly not we are used to. He refused to be engaged in denigrating our "Allies" such as France and Germany for their opposition. He stated that he likes that people are free to protest, and did not belittle the people that protest him.
Everything's so black and white in Bush's world. It must be so comforting to see the world in such simplistic terms. Of course people have the right to protest. He, of course, isn't obligated to be influenced by them, however that may come back to haunt him in 2004.
He politely pointed out, several times, that the cost of a WMD attack in the US unacceptable. This was his answer to why their was a need for the US to disarm Iraq, if the UN failed to do so, of what an attack on Iraq will cost in dollars, and to the question how the economy will be affected. He was much nicer than i would have been. How hard is it for a guy to see that if 9/11 did what it did to the economy, what would a Nuke in LA or smallpox in NY do?
There are many, many countries aside from Iraq who could conceivably supply WMDs to terrorists. North Korea is imminently more likely to do so, since they don't have oil to subsidize their economy. They rely on weapon sales to keep their regime afloat. So what are we going to do? Make a list of countries we're not comfortable with and attack them one-by-one? Outrageous.
Also he repeatedly said, and appearantly the reporters werent listening, that he is the last phase of diplomacy and that he hopes it works as he does not want war. It should be clear to everyone by now that he doesnt want war, if he did we would gone in before now.
If he doesn't want war so bad, let's not have a war? Right? Problem solved. Let the inspectors do their job. Iraq should only be disarmed by force if the UN agrees in majority to do so. Otherwise we will undermine our legitimacy, piss off whatever remaining allies we have & cause a terrorist backlash against our country. What will be the cost of attacking Iraq if it produces another 1,000 Bin Ladins powered by American arrogance and hegemony?
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: MrChicken
I watched the whole thing.
What I saw was a President that stands firm in his belief that he is going to protect the US. It was obvious that he was upset personally over 9/11, not just lip biting for votes. He doesnt care about polls, he doesnt care about getting re-elected, what he cares about is protecting the US from having an Iraqi made WMD going off in the US.
We saw a president who was clueless about why the majority of the U.N. was against immediate war and why millions upon millions of protestors world-wide might also think it's a bad idea. He was asked 4 different questions about world opinion and he ducked each and every one. Bush should care equally about a North Korean WMD going off in America. He doesn't. Iraq is obviously a personal crusade for Bush.
The guy you call a moron answered more hard line hostile questions about a situation tougher to handle, in one night, than any other President I can remember. The safety of the US and maybe the world is at stake, he really cares about the troops he is sending into combat and the civilians in Iraq, and he does not care what millions of protestors say against it. He only flat refused to answer 1 question the whole night, about whether the war would be a failure with the capture of Saddam. He didnt answer a couple of questions because some of the reporters tried ask several questions at one time, which they all know is a no-no because it takes time away from the other reporters.
He dodged more questions and forgot the two-parters so much it was downright awkward. We got no new information from Bush tonight. It's the same old story: Stay on script, hit the key cliches (e.g. 9/11, regime change, etc). Bush only barely held it together because every response was so heavily scripted.
He made a great case for the UN. Plainly put, he said they must back up their resolutions. He is giving the UN a chance to regain a position of authority by following through on their resolution(s). The US does not need the UN for this, but Bush wants the UN to step up. he knows that if they dont act now, nobody will ever listen to them ever again simply because they lack the resolve to do anything. Bosnia ring a bell?
Yes, we're going to enforce international law by ignoring international law. Bush logic: to have peace, we must have war. To save lives, we must kill Iraqis. It makes absolutely no sense. Why don't we make the UN enforce the dozen or so resolutions concerning Isreal and its occupation of Palestinean lands? No wonder the whole world thinks we're a bunch of hypocrites...
Has not anybody out there noticed how Bush flatly refuses to insult those that disagree with him? He doesnt sling mud at the Democrats, certainly not we are used to. He refused to be engaged in denigrating our "Allies" such as France and Germany for their opposition. He stated that he likes that people are free to protest, and did not belittle the people that protest him.
Everything's so black and white in Bush's world. It must be so comforting to see the world in such simplistic terms. Of course people have the right to protest. He, of course, isn't obligated to be influenced by them, however that may come back to haunt him in 2004.
He politely pointed out, several times, that the cost of a WMD attack in the US unacceptable. This was his answer to why their was a need for the US to disarm Iraq, if the UN failed to do so, of what an attack on Iraq will cost in dollars, and to the question how the economy will be affected. He was much nicer than i would have been. How hard is it for a guy to see that if 9/11 did what it did to the economy, what would a Nuke in LA or smallpox in NY do?
There are many, many countries aside from Iraq who could conceivably supply WMDs to terrorists. North Korea is imminently more likely to do so, since they don't have oil to subsidize their economy. They rely on weapon sales to keep their regime afloat. So what are we going to do? Make a list of countries we're not comfortable with and attack them one-by-one? Outrageous.
Also he repeatedly said, and appearantly the reporters werent listening, that he is the last phase of diplomacy and that he hopes it works as he does not want war. It should be clear to everyone by now that he doesnt want war, if he did we would gone in before now.
If he doesn't want war so bad, let's not have a war? Right? Problem solved. Let the inspectors do their job. Iraq should only be disarmed by force if the UN agrees in majority to do so. Otherwise we will undermine our legitimacy, piss off whatever remaining allies we have & cause a terrorist backlash against our country. What will be the cost of attacking Iraq if it produces another 1,000 Bin Ladins powered by American arrogance and hegemony?
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
A) if that perp has a weapon drawn on an officer hell yes they shoot first. i.e. Saddam has WMD that he is not suppossed to have acording to the treaty THAT HE (his goverment) signed. He refuses to get rid of them.
B) I take it from the last part of that statement what you mean is that Bush wants to shoot first and ask questions later. What the hell have the last 12 or so years been?
Your analogy is significantly different from 'Busa's. But even if we took yours at face value it is clear you would be describing North Korea even Russia but NOT Iraq.
Even the Bush admin would admit there is much we do NOT know about Iraq's WMD capabilities. At the moment Blix/El Baradei are charged with answering those questions. Bush's perspective is that inspections will not work b/c Saddam is not cooperating. Fine. Bush then continues to say the ONLY way to answer the questions is to invade, depose Saddam, install a US-regime, and then try to find answers. The common refrain from the Bush admin is that inspections cannot go on ad infinitum. A reasonable statement to a nonexistent proposal. We can quibble about the French but even Chirac is proposing several months to see if inspections can make significant progress. Their resolve to address noncompliance may be consistent with a souffle but that's still a proposal for limited inspections.
The Bush admin loves to talk about 12 years of obstinancy but clearly the last 2 years were on his watch. Curiously, Iraq didn't become a pressing threat until August 2002 but the vast majority of Saddam's dastardly deeds predate the current Bush admin. Bush is either a slow reader or something's fishy about his calculus.
Bush's perspective is that inspections will not work b/c Saddam is not cooperating. Fine. Bush then continues to say the ONLY way to answer the questions is to invade, depose Saddam, install a US-regime, and then try to find answers.
If he doesn't want war so bad, let's not have a war? Right? Problem solved. Let the inspectors do their job. Iraq should only be disarmed by force if the UN agrees in majority to do so. Otherwise we will undermine our legitimacy, piss off whatever remaining allies we have & cause a terrorist backlash against our country. What will be the cost of attacking Iraq if it produces another 1,000 Bin Ladins powered by American arrogance and hegemony?
Originally posted by: dcpsoguy
Originally posted by: hagbard
Originally posted by: dcpsoguy
You are all looking like idiots insulting the President like this. You have nothing against the President, so therefore you personally attack him.
What do you want, specifics? Do your research.
All you democrats do is insult, insult, insult because Bush is not a great speaker. I would rather have a bad speaker than have a GREAT speaker who lies to us all the time, ie Clinton.
So your reasoning is that you want to live in fear rather than do something about it. Amazing.
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
It made me sick how he kept tring to link the horrors of 911 with saddam. Even the CIA says they can't find a link but he goes on mouthing away with it knowing full well it will gain public support for it's false link
In related news Saddam Destroyed 6 missles out of the suspected 30 or so al rassams he has today. I told this was'nt about WMD. Never has been. We need a base in the middle east and Saddam needs to go.
Originally posted by: hagbard
Originally posted by: LH
Its fvcking war, people die, lots of people die, unless you are the US and are technologically superior. So what if the US buried bodies as they advanced the front line. I could care less about Iraqi military personal being killed and buried, or being buried alive.
You think they have a volunteer army? You know that most of his troops are likely young teenagers? Sorry, you don't GAF.
I repeat, it was a fvcking WAR. Press on the front line cause unneeded problems.
Great, I'll go beat the sh*t out of some whippy teenager, if it makes American's feel macho it should work for me too.