Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sandman on January 28, 2003, 12:02:38 PM
-
Anyone not going to watch? Predictions?
-
I probably wont watch it. I'll give it a shot, but I honestly hate listening to Bush speak. Right or wrong, he sounds like he's reciting hiku with his "four words per breath" speaking style.
Fortunately, the transcripts will be available tomorrow, and I can skip to the good parts, and avoid the "Here in the audience tonight is Sgt Bob Johnson of the 31st Marine Exp. Unit. Stg Johnson will be going to Iraq in the morning, and his family will benefit from my tax plan"
I might give it a shot with closed captioning tonight though.
-Sik
-
i'll just get the "highlights" from MSNBC tomorrow :)
-
It's sort of like a presidential progress report.
here is last years:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html
Originally posted by GScholz
What is it?
-
I predict there will be a Democratic rebuttal, from an minority thats from a liberal State, and said Minority has a popularity of 30% approval rating in his state as governor. :)
-
I'll just wait for the PBS translation.
:p
"Hiku" - good one Sikboy :D
-
Gimme an H!
Gimme an A!
Gimme an I!
Gimme a K!
Gimme a U!
-
I will endure through Bush's style of speech to hear what he has to say.
He will not announce an attack on Iraq.
I think he will tell us that Iraq's time is near if they don't come up with something very fast. He will announce that the solid evidence concerning a matierial breech by Iraq will be revealed within 2 weeks. He will spend a little time trying to rally the nation on this issue.
He will counter Clinton's attacks on Home Security and his post 9/11 performance in making Americans more secure.
He will allude to the racial issues.
He will talk optimistically about the economy and one or two other domestic issues.
I particularly enjoy listening to the various analysis' afterwards.
-
the democrats have already rebutted, and they havn't heard the speech yet.
-
is it expensive to mobilize troops from USA to iraq?
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
I will endure through Bush's style of speech to hear what he has to say.
Eh, my eyes work as well as my ears, and they all just feed that information to my brain, which seems to be functioning (spelling aside Sandman... I went to Burroughs, cut me some slack) :)
-Sik
-
I agree completely with sandman.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Gimme an H!
Gimme an A!
Gimme an I!
Gimme a K!
Gimme a U!
oink oink oink oink oink
oink oink oink oink oink oink oink
hey go lick a pig
(tm Arlo)
-
Just so I can laugh at Duhhhhbya as he mangles the english language in another speech, and blabbers about the "massive piles" of WMD in Iraq.....the ones they can't seem to find.
Chimpy as president brings to mind the movie Forrest Gump, what we're seeing now was left on the cutting room floor after the final edit.
-
Originally posted by weazel
Just so I can laugh at Duhhhhbya as he mangles the english language in another speech, and blabbers about the "massive piles" of WMD in Iraq.....the ones they can't seem to find.
Chimpy as president brings to mind the movie Forrest Gump, what we're seeing now was left on the cutting room floor after the final edit.
Thats the best you could do? Go drink some terpintine and come back when you feel up to telling us what you REALLY think. (PS: If the paint thinner tastes bad, its W.'s fault)
-
Yes - Just so I can laugh at Duhhhhbya as he mangles the english language in another speech, and blabbers about the "massive piles" of WMD in Iraq.....the ones they can't seem to find.
Chimpy as president brings to mind the movie Forrest Gump, what we're seeing now was left on the cutting room floor after the final edit. - Weazel
Weazel - Here (http://www.moviesounds.com/dragnet/hotshot.wav) :p
-
Gunthr HERE (http://www.asu.net/bsh/union.wmv) :D
Tonight, when Bush says "Our economy is fundamentally strong," what he's really saying is,
"Despite all my bungling, Bill Clinton's economy has still not crashed."
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
Eh, my eyes work as well as my ears, and they all just feed that information to my brain, which seems to be functioning (spelling aside Sandman... I went to Burroughs, cut me some slack) :)
-Sik
You have traveled far, pilgrim. :)
-
Originally posted by weazel
Gunthr HERE (http://www.asu.net/bsh/union.wmv) :D
Tonight, when Bush says "Our economy is fundamentally strong," what he's really saying is,
"Despite all my bungling, Bill Clinton's economy has still not crashed."
People keep talking about a piss poor economy. I'm sorry but I just don't see it. The economy has slowed but it's not bad at all. I look at all the trains that go through austin and they are all packed full with double decker containers and there are lots of trains that go through here. The freeways are packed full with 18 wheelers driving their goods. I talk to my old boss in Houston and he's just as busy as ever designing new houses (that's a big indicator right there) and he said the big stuff is coming back from slowing some last year, that's 3500 sq. ft. and up. He said that the little stuff 1500-2500 sq. ft. have kept him busy through the "slow" times. That tells me that all kinds of people never stopped buying homes. My dad's apraisal business is cranking away just like it has for the past 12+ years. Then I get to my job, civil engineering (yet another key indicator) and sure we slowed down a bit after 9/11 and 1/2 of last year, but we're getting busy again :) I made about $5000, before taxes, less than I did last year. That was after missing a week in August and the whole month of December without pay. All this "bad" economy did for me was keep me from getting a raise last year, and I didn't really deserve one anyway.
That's the way I see it in Texas anyway, I guess I can't speak for other parts of the nation. It aint that bad here though. High tech bit the bullet but everything else seems to be going well from my standpoint.....
-
It took less than a minute for chimpy to tell his 1st lie, "we will not pass on problems to future generations."
I guess the deficit isn't a problem?
On a 0-10 credibility scale he scores a goose egg.
-
Good speech IMO. Well done Chimpy.
-
the speech was good - to watch the dumbacrats try to sit on their hands & not look unpatriotic was even better :)
-
Originally posted by weazel
It took less than a minute for chimpy to tell his 1st lie, "we will not pass on problems to future generations."
I guess the deficit isn't a problem?
On a 0-10 credibility scale he scores a goose egg.
Just a guess because I watched the whole speech and wasn't here. It took you less than 2 minutes to start bashing him?
I could just see you flippin out ever time he dropped the nukUlar bomb :D
you poor psychotic person you....
-
i missed it , did hillary look bored, yawn, roll her eyes , stick out her tongue ??
-
I liked it when Bush said:
"Jobs are created when the economy grows; the economy grows when Americans have more money to spend and invest; and the best and fairest way to make sure Americans have that money is not to tax it away in the first place. "
And all the Dems sat down while Republicans stood and cheered. That is the core Dem attitude on display...... more taxes. They looked pretty stupid sitting down.
I guess Dems think the economy grows only when they take our money and spend it how THEY see fit.
Also when Bush said:
"We don't need a national healthcare system that dictates coverage and rations care......." Dems sat on their hands again LOL!
Second best part was after, when that cheezball gov. from WA came on with the Dems "reaction" to the address. Cracks me up, they wrote the "reaction" speach days ago.
-
Lol, Udie, I posted 12 minutes before your response...you were probably still applauding from you living room couch and wiping the tears from your eyes at the sentimentalist tripe chimpy blathered about medicine and freedom for Iraqs children.
As far as psychotic goes should I do a search for some of your past gems?
(http://www.bartcop.com/cmon_fellas.jpg)
Originally posted by Udie
Just a guess because I watched the whole speech and wasn't here. It took you less than 2 minutes to start bashing him?
I could just see you flippin out ever time he dropped the nukUlar bomb :D
you poor psychotic person you....
-
The speech was pretty good up until the end, when Bush had to include the standard flag waving stuff.
I was half-expecting him to start off with:
"As I speak, Coalition tanks, soldiers and aircraft are crossing the Kuwaiti-Iraqi border with the goal of liberating Iraq from the tyrannical rule of Saddam Hussein..."
-
Men, this stuff that some sources sling around about America wanting out of this war, not wanting to fight, is a crock of roadkill. Americans love to fight, traditionally. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle.
You are here today for three reasons. First, because you are here to defend your homes and your loved ones. Second, you are here for your own self respect, because you would not want to be anywhere else. Third, you are here because you are real men and all real men like to fight.
When you, here, everyone of you, were kids, you all admired the champion marble player, the fastest runner, the toughest boxer, the big league ball players, and the All-American football players. Americans love a winner. Americans will not tolerate a loser.
Americans despise cowards.
Americans play to win all of the time. I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost nor will ever lose a war; for the very idea of losing is hateful to an American.
You are not all going to die. Only two percent of you right here today would die in a major battle. Death must not be feared. Death, in time, comes to all men. Yes, every man is scared in his first battle. If he says he's not, he's a liar. Some men are cowards but they fight the same as the brave men or they get the hell slammed out of them watching men fight who are just as scared as they are.
The real hero is the man who fights even though he is scared. Some men get over their fright in a minute under fire. For some, it takes an hour. For some, it takes days. But a real man will never let his fear of death overpower his honor, his sense of duty to his country, and his innate manhood. Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge. It brings out all that is best and it removes all that is base. Americans pride themselves on being He Men and they ARE He Men.
Remember that the enemy is just as frightened as you are, and probably more so. They are not supermen.
All through your Army careers, you men have squeaked about what you call "chicken toejam drilling". That, like everything else in this Army, has a definite purpose. That purpose is alertness. Alertness must be bred into every soldier. I don't give a diddly for a man who's not always on his toes. You men are veterans or you wouldn't be here. You are ready for what's to come. A man must be alert at all times if he expects to stay alive. If you're not alert, sometime, a German son-of-an-amazinhunk-squeak is going to sneak up behind you and beat you to death with a sock full of toejam!
There are four hundred neatly marked graves somewhere in Sicily, all because one man went to sleep on the job. But they are German graves, because we caught the bastard asleep before they did.
An Army is a team. It lives, sleeps, eats, and fights as a team.
This individual heroic stuff is pure horse toejam. The bilious bastards who write that kind of stuff for the Saturday Evening Post don't know any more about real fighting under fire than they know about diddlying!" "We have the finest food, the finest equipment, the best spirit, and the best men in the world. Why, by God, I actually pity those poor sons-of-squeakes we're going up against. By God, I do.
My men don't surrender, and I don't want to hear of any soldier under my command being captured unless he has been hit. Even if you are hit, you can still fight back That's not just bull toejam either. The kind of man that I want in my command is just like the lieutenant in Libya, who, with a Luger against his chest, jerked off his helmet, swept the gun aside with one hand, and busted the hell out of the Kraut with his helmet. Then he jumped on the gun and went out and killed another German before they knew what the hell was coming off. And, all of that time, this man had a bullet through a lung. There was a real man!
All of the real heroes are not storybook combat fighters, either. Every single man in this Army plays a vital role. Don't ever let up. Don't ever think that your job is unimportant. Every man has a job to do and he must do it. Every man is a vital link in the great chain.
What if every truck driver suddenly decided that he didn't like the whine of those shells overhead, turned yellow, and jumped headlong into a ditch? The cowardly bastard could say, 'Hell, they won't miss me, just one man in thousands.' But, what if every man thought that way? Where in the hell would we be now? What would our country, our loved ones, our homes, even the world, be like?
No, whoopeeit, Americans don't think like that. Every man does his job. Every man serves the whole. Every department, every unit, is important in the vast scheme of this war.
The ordnance men are needed to supply the guns and machinery of war to keep us rolling. The Quartermaster is needed to bring up food and clothes because where we are going there isn't a hell of a lot to steal. Every last man on K.P. has a job to do, even the one who heats our water to keep us from getting the 'G.I. toejams'.
Each man must not think only of himself, but also of his buddy fighting beside him. We don't want yellow cowards in this Army. They should be killed off like rats. If not, they will go home after this war and breed more cowards. The brave men will breed more brave men. Kill off the whoopeeed cowards and we will have a nation of brave men.
One of the bravest men that I ever saw was a fellow on top of a telegraph pole in the midst of a furious fire fight in Tunisia. I stopped and asked what the hell he was doing up there at a time like that. He answered, 'Fixing the wire, Sir.' I asked, 'Isn't that a little unhealthy right about now?' He answered, 'Yes Sir, but the whoopeeed wire has to be fixed.' I asked, 'Don't those planes strafing the road bother you?' And he answered, 'No, Sir, but you sure as hell do!' Now, there was a real man. A real soldier. There was a man who devoted all he had to his duty, no matter how seemingly insignificant his duty might appear at the time, no matter how great the odds.
And you should have seen those trucks on the rode to Tunisia. Those drivers were magnificent. All day and all night they rolled over those son-of-a-squeaking roads, never stopping, never faltering from their course, with shells bursting all around them all of the time. We got through on good old American guts. Many of those men drove for over forty consecutive hours. These men weren't combat men, but they were soldiers with a job to do. They did it, and in one hell of a way they did it. They were part of a team. Without team effort, without them, the fight would have been lost. All of the links in the chain pulled together and the chain became unbreakable.
Don't forget, you men don't know that I'm here. No mention of that fact is to be made in any letters. The world is not supposed to know what the hell happened to me. I'm not supposed to be commanding this Army. I'm not even supposed to be here in England. Let the first bastards to find out be the whoopeeed Germans. Some day I want to see them raise up on their piss-soaked hind legs and howl, 'Jesus Christ, it's the whoopeeed Third Army again and that son-of-a-diddlying-squeak Patton'.
We want to get the hell over there." The quicker we clean up this whoopeeed mess, the quicker we can take a little jaunt against the purple pissing Japs and clean out their nest, too. Before the whoopeeed Marines get all of the credit.
Sure, we want to go home. We want this war over with. The quickest way to get it over with is to go get the bastards who started it. The quicker they are whipped, the quicker we can go home. The shortest way home is through Berlin and Tokyo. And when we get to Berlin I am personally going to shoot that paper hanging son-of-a-squeak Hitler. Just like I'd shoot a snake!
When a man is lying in a shell hole, if he just stays there all day, aGerman will get to him eventually. The hell with that idea. The hell with taking it. My men don't dig foxholes. I don't want them to. Foxholes only slow up an offensive. Keep moving. And don't give the enemy time to dig one either. We'll win this war, but we'll win it only by fighting and by showing the Germans that we've got more guts than they have; or ever will have.
We're not going to just shoot the sons-of-squeakes, we're going to rip out their living whoopeeed guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy Hun cock suckers by the bushel-diddlying-basket. War is a bloody, killing business. You've got to spill their blood, or they will spill yours. Rip them up the belly. Shoot them in the guts. When shells are hitting all around you and you wipe the dirt off your face and realize that instead of dirt it's the blood and guts of what once was your best friend beside you, you'll know what to do!
I don't want to get any messages saying, 'I am holding my position.' We are not holding a whoopeeed thing. Let the Germans do that. We are advancing constantly and we are not interested in holding onto anything, except the enemy's balls. We are going to twist his balls and kick the living toejam out of him all of the time.
Our basic plan of operation is to advance and to keep on advancing regardless of whether we have to go over, under, or through the enemy. We are going to go through him like crap through a goose; like toejam through a tin horn!
From time to time there will be some complaints that we are pushing our people too hard. I don't give a good whoopee about such complaints. I believe in the old and sound rule that an ounce of sweat will save a gallon of blood. The harder WE push, the more Germans we will kill. The more Germans we kill, the fewer of our men will be killed. Pushing means fewer casualties. I want you all to remember that.
That is all."
-
Good speech.
-
Originally posted by rc51
That is all."
Didn't want to quote the whole speech, but wasn't that Patton's?
-
"Wasn't a lot of this just malarkey?"
- Chris Matthews, to his guest panel
-
People keep talking about a piss poor economy. I'm sorry but I just don't see it.
You ain't in the IT business eh?
DK has a remarkably resiliant, constant economy. When there's an upswing, the tax payers hardly notice. When it's going downhill, we get some less money, but it's not bad. Employment rate swings of course, but it doesn't seem like Danes are that concerned.
But the IT business, of which I am now a part, have seen unemployment rise from 2% to 9% in 10 months. I've had interviews at some of the few companies that have managed to cut costs and then grow, but fore the one yesterday, there was 65 applicants. The employers can pick and choose.
Locally, an economy might be doing good. Globally, it's badly suffering. Stocks drive the economy, not goods (oddly enough), and stocks are low.
-
Originally posted by john9001
i missed it , did hillary look bored, yawn, roll her eyes , stick out her tongue ??
the new "leader" of the dems was caught laughing and shaking her head when the tax cuts were mentioned. they quickly cut away from the CA airhead .. too bad.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I liked it when Bush said:
"Jobs are created when the economy grows; the economy grows when Americans have more money to spend and invest; and the best and fairest way to make sure Americans have that money is not to tax it away in the first place. "
And all the Dems sat down while Republicans stood and cheered. That is the core Dem attitude on display...... more taxes. They looked pretty stupid sitting down.
You know I was thinking the same thing. That clip would make a great political ad.
-
Few economists outside Bush's inner circle think the tax cut is going to do anythink to stimulate the economy. It will be on hugely expense mistake if it doesn't work.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Few economists outside Bush's inner circle think the tax cut is going to do anythink to stimulate the economy. It will be on hugely expense mistake if it doesn't work.
yeah, we'll just follow canada's great example when it comes to taxes :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Eagler
yeah, we'll just follow canada's great example when it comes to taxes :rolleyes:
80 percent of their exports and 50 percent of their jobs are directly related to the US.
He (thrawn) better hope like hell he is wrong about taxes.
-
Good speech. He seemed to have that whole thing memorized.
Bush did well connecting Iraq to Homeland Security. Looking forward to Sec of State Powell's address to the UN on Feb. 05... should be some declassified matierial presented.
If I were Saddam Hussain, I would be packing up my toejam right now.
I think Bush did a good job addressing some of the domestic issues.
I loved it when bashed trial lawyers - saying that environmental problems will be solved by technology, not endless lawsuits.
I actually got chills when he talked about spending money on R+D for hydrogen powered cars, with the goal of having them in the showrooms in 16 years. That's some exciting stuff.
I think he connected with a lot of Americans when he spoke about problems of addiction and education. I believe a lot of jaws dropped when he said he wanted to do something for aids victims on the African continent - that was totally unexpected.
All in all, pretty good for a guy who the rabid left characterizes as "stupid", "dumb" etc.
-
for your information.....the best country to live in IS Canada
damn was watchin tv last night....many many channels had a stupid lookin monkey talkin about stuff he doesn't even understand
:eek:
here you all are talking about the speech someone wrote for him:p
that monkey(your leader)had 0.....thats ZERO experiance in international affairs...and there he is telling you to make WAR on foreign soil.....:rolleyes:
-
Quote:
""Wasn't a lot of this just malarkey?"
- Chris Matthews, to his guest panel"
Chris Matthews' show just got booted out of it's 8PM Primetime slot due to low ratings. Now MSNBC is looking to Sam Donaldson to "rev-up" their dismal ratings and stop the beating they are taking from Fox and Larry King.
No "malarkey".
And more thrashing-about by the Losing Left.......
SLO:
Come in from the cold, SLO. You haven't a clue to what you are talking about...........
Cabby
-
Originally posted by Udie
People keep talking about a piss poor economy. I'm sorry but I just don't see it. The economy has slowed but it's not bad at all.
2002 was the best year ever for our business.
-
Excellent rc51...
Although its really sad to think what a great man like Patton would be in this day and age... child killer, murderer, hell... they'd probably call him a Nazi... hows that for irony? How low we've sunk. :(
-
Blair says there is NO link between Sept. 11th and Iraq. He says they are not sure as to the link between Al Queda and Iraq generally.
So, Gunthr, I am *very* interested in how Bush links Iraq to 'Homeland Security'.
And if anyone wants to make comments regarding the relevance of what Britain does or its leadership thinks, just remember who you are dragging into this thing with you. I for one don't want my country involved in a war alongside a country that is so disdainful of her allies.
This next six months is going to be very interesting.
As for Bush's comparison of Saddam to Hitler. I just don't see it, apart from superficially. Within 6 years of gaining control of the reigns of absolute rule in Germany, Hitler had plunged the country into a war of global domination and conquest.
Hussein has been in a similar position for decades, yet has shown no moves to become a major player on the world stage. He's a contained tyrant.
Hitler was not a direct creation of the major world powers. He was a product of circumstance and an opportunist. Hussein was groomed and supported as any good puppet ever was - he was placed in the position he has found himself.
Blair and Bush have a long way to go to convince the majority of the British public that this war is worthwhile. Most are against it at this time.
I don't like some of the decisions that have been made in recent months that have sneaked past public and parliamentary scrutiny because of the ongoing crisis in Iraq. Son of Star Wars, for example.
-
It was a good speech overall, better than I expected. And his tongue didn't grow too thick 'till towards the end.
He made some good points about Iraq disarming. Basically he said that we know Iraq has thousands of pounds of biological and chemical weapons. We know this from their own past records. And they've given us no evidence of the disposal of these weapons nor have they offered them up. It isn't the job of the inspectors to play hide and seek or to find a smoking gun but rather to confirm that Iraq is abiding by it's agreement.
Lest some forget, Iraq surrendered unconditionally in '91. Conditions were then placed upon them which they have refused to meet.
Personally, I'm tired of being the world's policeman. But that doesn't mean just not participating in unpopular wars. It also means not intervening in situations similar to that of Somalia in '93. As long as we exert our substantial influence beyond our borders we're going to hated and our motives questioned, no matter how benevolent our intentions. Still, maybe it's more important to do the right thing than to be popular.
-
So, Gunthr, I am *very* interested in how Bush links Iraq to 'Homeland Security'. - Dowding
Hi Dowding. I'm not sure if you saw the State of the Union address, or read the text, but Bush took some pains to connect the dots. Here is an excerpt:
Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons — not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities. Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead his utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world.
The 108 UN weapons inspectors were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons … lay those weapons out for the world to see … and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.
The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax — enough doses to kill several million people. He has not accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin — enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He has not accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents also could kill untold thousands. He has not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon, and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.
The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving. From intelligence sources, we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the UN inspectors — sanitizing inspection sites, and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses. Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. And intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with UN inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.
Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks, to build and keep weapons of mass destruction — but why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack. With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East, and create deadly havoc in the region. And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody, reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
Before September 11, 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents and lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans — this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that day never comes.
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.
This dictator, who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons, has already used them on whole villages — leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained — by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape.
If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country — your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation.
The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, our friends, and our allies. The United States will ask the UN Security Council to convene on February 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraq's illegal weapons programs; its attempts to hide those weapons from inspectors; and its links to terrorist groups. We will consult, but let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.
-
Personally, I'm tired of being the world's policeman.
That implies you had nothing to do with the origins of the situation you are dealing with - that you are simplying strolling along, the instrument of global consensus and doling out justice in situations that don't really have anything to do with you.
That's very naive.
Saddam is a US/NATO creation. He was a repressive monster when Donny Rumsfeld was helping Iraq gen up on Chemical/Biological weapons info and when we were giving him crate after crate of arms.
This is the US's mess - this IS your backyard as much as anyone else's.
I'm for the removal Saddam - but I'm not sure it's a priority right now and I particularly dislike the use of 'Homeland Security' as a justification.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Saddam is a US/NATO creation. He was a repressive monster when Donny Rumsfeld was helping Iraq gen up on Chemical/Biological weapons info and when we were giving him crate after crate of arms.
So all those T-72's and AK-47's came from the US?
What about all those MiG's?
Who designed and help build KARI?
-Smut
-
Originally posted by Dowding
This is the US's mess -
then step aside as in shutting up while we clean it up
-
Originally posted by Krusher
80 percent of their exports and 50 percent of their jobs are directly related to the US.
He (thrawn) better hope like hell he is wrong about taxes.
Normally I would be, and I certain would for the US economy to pick up. But Canada has the fastest growing enomomy in the G8. It used to be that if there was an economic slow down in the US it would it Canada hard. But it's just not happening. I think it's because the low Canadian doller and the fact that our government has cut spending in a huge way over the past 12 years, our goverment has be working with a surplus for quite a few years now. Alot of US based multi-nationals are openning offices in Canada because they can pay us in Canadian dollers.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
That implies you had nothing to do with the origins of the situation you are dealing with - that you are simplying strolling along, the instrument of global consensus and doling out justice in situations that don't really have anything to do with you.
That's very naive.
Saddam is a US/NATO creation. He was a repressive monster when Donny Rumsfeld was helping Iraq gen up on Chemical/Biological weapons info and when we were giving him crate after crate of arms.
This is the US's mess - this IS your backyard as much as anyone else's.
I'm for the removal Saddam - but I'm not sure it's a priority right now and I particularly dislike the use of 'Homeland Security' as a justification.
It implies nothing of the sort. Moving countries towards peace and/or democracy requires manipulation. I never denied that. But I think it's a lost cause. Too many in the world aren't interested in democracy or peace. And if you're implication that we've done nothing but make a mess of things is true then perhaps even more it's time for us to withdraw, close our borders, and say to hell with the rest of them.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Alot of US based multi-nationals are openning offices in Canada because they can pay us in Canadian dollers.
exactly....
-
Who supplied him with the chemical/biological weapons technology the sum of which runs into billions of US dollars?
Who sold him materials such as Anthrax, VX, Nile Fever, Botulism up until 1992?
Who sold him bio-plant technical drawings, missile parts and guidance systems, long after Saddam had gassed 5000 Kurds?
Which Chamber of Commerce rubber stamped export licenses for all this stuff?
Who gave him parts for a super-gun capable of hitting Israel with huge WMD equipped shells?
Guess what? It wasn't the Russians!
If you think the origins of Saddams WMD program (which is what Bush is concerned about, not a bunch of tanks, planes and small arms) have nothing to do with the West, you are deluding yourself.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Who supplied him with the chemical/biological weapons technology the sum of which runs into billions of US dollars?
Who sold him material such as Anthrax, VX, Nile Fever, Botulism to Iraq up until 1992?
Who sold him bio-plant technical drawings, missile parts and guidance systems, long after Saddam had gassed 5000 Kurds?
Which Chamber of Commerce rubber stamped export licenses for all this stuff?
Who gave him a super-gun capable of hitting Israel with huge WMD equipped shells?
Guess what? It wasn't the Russians!
If you think the origins of Saddams WMD program (which is what Bush is concerned about, not a bunch of tanks, planes and small arms) have nothing to do with the West, you are deluding yourself.
I dunno, who? You do have evidence before making this accusation, right?
-
Dowding, just because states in the West (US, UK, France, Germany) gave "parts" that could be used for weapons creation doesnt mean that the West gave him weapons.
The supergun you are refering to, for example, was never completed once the US found out where the "piping" was going and stopped shipment of the tube segments.
-
Who supplied him with the chemical/biological weapons technology the sum of which runs into billions of US dollars? -Dowding
Dowding, the issue at hand is the threat posed by Iraq.
If the USA in the past has supported Iraq, it doesn't change the fact that Iraq is presently a huge threat to people all over the world. Bush has only been President for two years, and I don't lay responsibility for previous foriegn policy issues on him.
I fully expect the President to protect our families and friends from this threat.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Who supplied him with the chemical/biological weapons technology the sum of which runs into billions of US dollars?
Billions of dollars? Proof please.
Originally posted by Dowding
Who sold him materials such as Anthrax, VX, Nile Fever, Botulism up until 1992?
Your end date is clearly wrong. Are you trying to say these materials were sold after Iraq invaded Kuwait?
Originally posted by Dowding
Who sold him bio-plant technical drawings, missile parts and guidance systems, long after Saddam had gassed 5000 Kurds?
Which Chamber of Commerce rubber stamped export licenses for all this stuff?
Iraq was seen as the lesser of two evils following the chaos in Iran. A strong Iraq was viewed as an attractive counter to Iran.
Unfortunately, hindsight is 20/20.
Originally posted by Dowding
Who gave him parts for a super-gun capable of hitting Israel with huge WMD equipped shells?
You might want to research this one a bit more...
Originally posted by Dowding
Guess what? It wasn't the Russians!
Indeed it wasn't. In fact a great deal of Iraq's military hardware came from Europe. Go figure.
Originally posted by Dowding
If you think the origins of Saddams WMD program (which is what Bush is concerned about, not a bunch of tanks, planes and small arms) have nothing to do with the West, you are deluding yourself.
Conventional Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait, and threatened to go further south.
Without those conventional forces, it would be fairly trival to take away Iraqi WMD.
You seem to think this is solely an American problem, due to past history or past weapons sales. The truth is much more complex than that. Indeed, it could be said that Saddam came to power in part due to the British.
-Smut
-
Any canadian that smuggly instults the intelligence or speaking abliity of GW Bush has been ignoring our Prime minister for the last 9? years.
He is an inarticulate baffoon of a man that could not give a good speech in any language. He has a speech defect fo christ sakes.
He is the most un charismatic man that has ever been a national leader of any country.
The presidents speech as a justification of war in Iraq is a farce.
Apperently if the Iraqis dont confirm the intelligence estimates of the US and the UN then they should be invaded. No methodology of why the 30,000 number makes sence, how it was derrived. anything. We are going to invade because some number that a geek came up with..probably because that was the number he thought his boss wanted....was wrong.
If we invade and dont find rest of the 30000 warheads..does GW say sorry? Do we flay the guy that came up with the number? Do we give the Iragis their leader, country and oil back...
That speach would not reasure anyone that had any reasonable doubts about the morality of a US invasion of Iraq. It is the kind of nonsence that countries do that have NO EVIDENCE to support what ammounts to the first act of blantant aggression by a major power in the 21st Century.
Its like the Polish "raid" on the German radio tower staged by the Germans that triggered the invasion of Poland.
Obviosly interesting to see the intel next week.
I dont know. I dont want a nuclear capable Iraq either.
They had reaction to the speach on the street on CNN this AM. One old lady said she liked alot of what he wanted to do..but she was uneasy because he hadn't "promised" any of it...
-
The presidents speech as a justification of war in Iraq is a farce.
Apperently if the Iraqis dont confirm the intelligence estimates of the US and the UN then they should be invaded. No methodology of why the 30,000 number makes sence, how it was derrived. anything. We are going to invade because some number that a geek came up with..probably because that was the number he thought his boss wanted....was wrong.
If we invade and dont find rest of the 30000 warheads..does GW say sorry? Do we flay the guy that came up with the number? Do we give the Iragis their leader, country and oil back... - Pongo
Pongo, with all due respect, just because the President didn't mail an explanation of the methodology or how the numbers were derived out to your address in Canada for your approval does not mean that the figures are incorrect.
I believe that all figures quoted in his speech are widely accepted by the United Nations and the intelligence agencies of several different countries.
-
so eagle if this tax cut goes thru you are going on record saying it will turn around the ecomomy? cause im willing to go on record that voodoo ecomomics by any other name is just horse toejam.
-
You may be right Gunthr
-
Originally posted by SLO
for your information.....the best country to live in IS Canada
damn was watchin tv last night....many many channels had a stupid lookin monkey talkin about stuff he doesn't even understand
:eek:
here you all are talking about the speech someone wrote for him:p
that monkey(your leader)had 0.....thats ZERO experiance in international affairs...and there he is telling you to make WAR on foreign soil.....:rolleyes:
It's not about that....it's about the character of Bush...he is a good man irregardless of what you toss our way from the great white north...you've made the common error of believing that we care what you think anyway.
-
Originally posted by weazel
It took less than a minute for chimpy to tell his 1st lie, "we will not pass on problems to future generations."
I guess the deficit isn't a problem?
On a 0-10 credibility scale he scores a goose egg.
Ya know what? The best thing about you posting is that Bush is our president and there are not enough words that you can spew to change that one iota.
It must suck to face that fact every day:)
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Few economists outside Bush's inner circle think the tax cut is going to do anythink to stimulate the economy. It will be on hugely expense mistake if it doesn't work.
One thing it will do is put money back where it belongs....if you can defend the record of US Congresses and their stewardship of our tax revenue, then get after it....it will at least be entertaining.
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
so eagle if this tax cut goes thru you are going on record saying it will turn around the ecomomy? cause im willing to go on record that voodoo ecomomics by any other name is just horse toejam.
it can not hurt .. if it does "turn around" it aint the tax cuts fault
give me my money back or better yet, don't take it in the first place and lets see what happens ............
yep, i'm for the $1000 a child break & removing the marriage penalty - you got a problem with that too?
washington can tightened their belts - obviously they have money to burn if we can do 1/2 the crap bush stated in the speech last night .......... from aids in africa to hydro cars ... yeah - they have enough money up there....
-
The Democrats don't need to respond to the State of the Union.
All they need to do is replay the broken promises from last year's speech.
(http://www.bartcop.com/goosedress.jpg)
-
Dowding, the issue at hand is the threat posed by Iraq.
If the USA in the past has supported Iraq, it doesn't change the fact that Iraq is presently a huge threat to people all over the world. Bush has only been President for two years, and I don't lay responsibility for previous foriegn policy issues on him.
That is not what I am arguing against. I actually agree completely with what you say here. The issue is the pathetic 'I'm sick of being the World's policeman', when the issue at hand is so very strongly connected to the past actions of the US and its Allies. You can't claim complete innocence in this affair - no-one can.
And so onto the doubters.
Dowding, just because states in the West (US, UK, France, Germany) gave "parts" that could be used for weapons creation doesnt mean that the West gave him weapons.
Wow. Tell me you don't believe that, Saurdaukar. What were we giving him the parts for? Safe keeping? For a laugh?
This wasn't some reasonable Western ally we were giving chemcial weapon precursers and, in some cases, production facilities to. This was a man in a war with Iran in which there was daily use of Chemical weapons. This was a man that the CIA regarded as, and I quote, "highly dangerous". They knew what he was capable of but turned a blind eye because it was politically and strategically expedient to do so.
From US Senate proceedings on the matter last year:
"According to confidential Commerce Department export-control documents obtained by Newsweek, the shopping list included a computerized database for Saddam's Interior Ministry (presumably to help keep track of political opponents); helicopters to transport Iraqi officials; chemical-analysis equipment for the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC), and, most unsettling, numerous shipments of "bacteria/fungi/protozoa" to the IAEC. According to former officials, the bacteria cultures could be used to make
biological weapons, including anthrax. The State Department
also approved the shipment of 1.5 million atropine injectors,
for use against the effects of chemical weapons, but the
Pentagon blocked the sale. The helicopters, some American
officials later surmised, were used to spray poison gas on
the Kurds."
Smut:
Billions of dollars? Proof please.
Chemicals are not cheap. The Iraqis bought pre-cursers from the US along with precision engineered piping. They were also sold lots of stuff by the British and the Germans. The total over two decades is in the hundreds of millions, if not billions.
Your end date is clearly wrong. Are you trying to say these materials were sold after Iraq invaded Kuwait?
It is wrong - I typed a little too quickly and hit the '2' instead of '0'. The US was exporting chemicals in 1990.
You might want to research this one a bit more...
No, I suggest you research the British super-gun affair a bit more. Check my sources. The gun in question was fully capable of launching a shell loaded with WMD to Israel. It was made about 20 minutes drive from this computer and its shipment was barely halted before it left the country. I remember it well, as would you if you were British.
Iraq was seen as the lesser of two evils following the chaos in Iran. A strong Iraq was viewed as an attractive counter to Iran.
Unfortunately, hindsight is 20/20.
We're not arguing the motives, we're arguing the existance of arms sales to Iraq. AKIron denied US and Western involvement, I'm illustrating how wrong he is.
Conventional Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait, and threatened to go further south.
Without those conventional forces, it would be fairly trival to take away Iraqi WMD.
What has this got to do with you denying US involvement in Iraq's arms procurement? Keep to the discussion at hand.
You seem to think this is solely an American problem, due to past history or past weapons sales. The truth is much more complex than that. Indeed, it could be said that Saddam came to power in part due to the British.
I suggest you engage your reading comprehension skills. I mention 'Western' several times. Do you think this term relates to the US only?
My point is that the US and US companies were involved in Iraq's procurement of WMD material and delivery systems. Others deny this fact.
My sources:
US Congressional Record - How Saddam Happened (http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s092002.html)
US Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup, December 2002 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29¬Found=true)
How Saddam Built His War Machine – With Western Help, September 1990 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/stories/wartech091790.htm)
THE SUPPLY OF BRITISH MILITARY EQUIPMENT TO IRAQ, 1979-1990 (http://www.caat.org.uk/Iraq1991Briefing.html)
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Chemicals are not cheap. The Iraqis bought pre-cursers from the US along with precision engineered piping. They were also sold lots of stuff by the British and the Germans. The total over two decades is in the hundreds of millions, if not billions.
Slight difference, don't you think? If the truth isn't dramatic enough for you to make your point, perhaps your point isn't as sharp as you think.
Originally posted by Dowding
No, I suggest you research the British super-gun affair a bit more. Check my sources. The gun in question was fully capable of launching a shell loaded with WMD to Israel. It was made about 20 minutes drive from this computer and its shipment was barely halted before it left the country. I remember it well, as would you if you were British.
Oh please, don't hand me that load of toejam.
"if you were British"
Grow up. The "British super gun affair" involved more than Brits.
I smell a double standard, BTW.
Originally posted by Dowding
What has this got to do with you denying US involvement in Iraq's arms procurement? Keep to the discussion at hand.
Iraqi's conventional forces are completely relevent. For example, what is stopping the U-2 overflights of Iraq?
Originally posted by Dowding
I suggest you engage your reading comprehension skills. I mention 'Western' several times. Do you think this term relates to the US only?
Maybe you should re-read what you wrote:
Originally posted by Dowding
This is the US's mess - this IS your backyard as much as anyone else's.
Hmmmm...
Originally posted by Dowding
My point is that the US and US companies were involved in Iraq's procurement of WMD material and delivery systems. Others deny this fact.
I am not denying anything. I am unclear what your point is however.
Are you in favor of Iraq having WMD, knowing now what we know about Saddam?
-Smut
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Who supplied him with the chemical/biological weapons technology the sum of which runs into billions of US dollars?
Who sold him materials such as Anthrax, VX, Nile Fever, Botulism up until 1992?
Who sold him bio-plant technical drawings, missile parts and guidance systems, long after Saddam had gassed 5000 Kurds?
Which Chamber of Commerce rubber stamped export licenses for all this stuff?
Who gave him parts for a super-gun capable of hitting Israel with huge WMD equipped shells?
Guess what? It wasn't the Russians!
If you think the origins of Saddams WMD program (which is what Bush is concerned about, not a bunch of tanks, planes and small arms) have nothing to do with the West, you are deluding yourself.
So what's your point?
-
I'm all grown up, thank you. The 'if you were British' comment merely relates to media coverage. You seemed to be doubting the existance of a super-gun project and/or its capabilities. I was pointing out this was a huge story over here - large enough to stick in the mind of a 9 year old kid.
Iraqi's conventional forces are completely relevent. For example, what is stopping the U-2 overflights of Iraq?
I'll just repeat what I wrote in my last post: What has that got to do with denying US involvement in Iraqi procurement of WMD technology? AKIron was denying US involvement, I was responding.
Conventional weapons are not what we are discussing.
Maybe you should re-read what you wrote.
I have. Read the whole thing. I'm talking about US involvement as part of a greater Western involvement in arms sales and technology transfer. I refer to the US specifically, because it is the US involvement that is being denied. It really is as simple as that.
Are you in favor of Iraq having WMD, knowing now what we know about Saddam?
I'm not arguing anything in relation to the current situation, other than how we got to it in the first place. I'm merely showing how the US is responsible, along with many other Western democracies, in Iraq's buildup of arms. This is a situation of the US's creation because of that.
Understand?
As to the current situation - well you might guess that I'm not exactly thrilled that WMD was given to him in the first place or a blind eye was turned to the activities of Western arms companies in the 80s. So, no, I'm not in favour of Saddam having those weapons. My beef is with priority, timing, method and opportunistic hijacking of issues to support a war.
-
Originally posted by weazel
The Democrats don't need to respond to the State of the Union.
All they need to do is replay the broken promises from last year's speech.
(http://www.bartcop.com/goosedress.jpg)
What he undertakes will prosper Weazel....I know that's going to drive ya nuts.
As for two more years, you meant six didn't ya?:)
-
Where did I deny involvement Dowding? You made several accusations implying that the US was responsible. I only asked for proof, which btw I don't think you've provided.
And yes, the US has been the world's policeman too long. Time to stop, including pulling out of the UN. I'm sure you guys'll do just fine without our interference, or our money/trade. Of course this isn't likely to happen, but if it were up to me it would.
-
...and Hitler kept on building his mighty LuftWaffe right in front of everyone, despite the Treaty of Versailles.
I'm not saying anything... I'm just looking at some parallel issues.
-SW
-
Okaaay AKiron. Let's recap.
You say you're tired of being 'World's Policeman' (my heart bleeds, by the way).
I point out responsibility of this situation falls on the shoulders of the US, along with the rest of the Western democracies.
You ask for proof.
I give you the proceedings of a Senate comittee that provides exactly that - have you read it by the way?
I also provide you with articles detailing US involvement as gleaned from both investigations by media and information gleaned from de-classified documents.
I also give you a highly detailed, chronological listing of weapons, including WMD, sold to by British companies etc from 1979 to 1990.
You don't deny involvement, but you are not convinced it has anything to do with Saddam and his regime? Hmmm...
The US economy, surprisingly, does a lot of business with those undesirable foreigners. A strong global military presence is vital to US economic interests.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
You don't deny involvement, but you are not convinced it has anything to do with Saddam and his regime? Hmmm...
The US economy, surprisingly, does a lot of business with those undesirable foreigners. A strong global military presence is vital to US economic interests.
You're putting words in my mouth. You said I denied involvment, I didn't deny it. You implied that Saddam is nothing more than a puppet of the US, I asked for evidence. You haven't supplied it.
Yes, the US does have many ties economically throughout the world. Could the US survive economically without international trade? I think the US would prosper greatly if we began producing all of our own consumer goods. Not to mention the internal stimulus if we hung on to the billions we currently give away to those countries in need.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
That implies you had nothing to do with the origins of the situation you are dealing with - that you are simplying strolling along, the instrument of global consensus and doling out justice in situations that don't really have anything to do with you.
That's very naive.
Saddam is a US/NATO creation. He was a repressive monster when Donny Rumsfeld was helping Iraq gen up on Chemical/Biological weapons info and when we were giving him crate after crate of arms.
This is the US's mess - this IS your backyard as much as anyone else's.
I'm for the removal Saddam - but I'm not sure it's a priority right now and I particularly dislike the use of 'Homeland Security' as a justification.
Well who's freakin Empire was it that diddlyed up Iraq to begin with? AND Palistine......
shaddup and get out of the way....
-
I'd just like to know why after every sentence everyone finds it necessary to not only clap but to then to stand and clap some more.
Is this because Bush is only capable of delivering one sentence at a time? Or is it now a made for TV like production with a guy in thr front with boards saying. Clap,Clap Louder,Clap Standing etc.... ?
And how come the 4 military guys in the front don't have to clap let alone stand and clap, other then at the end?
Just seems the whole thing could be cut down to a few minutes and I could of got back to watching Fear Factor. lol
:D
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
I'd just like to know why after every sentence everyone finds it necessary to not only clap but to then to stand and clap some more.
Is this because Bush is only capable of delivering one sentence at a time? Or is it now a made for TV like production with a guy in thr front with boards saying. Clap,Clap Louder,Clap Standing etc.... ?
And how come the 4 military guys in the front don't have to clap let alone stand and clap, other then at the end?
Just seems the whole thing could be cut down to a few minutes and I could of got back to watching Fear Factor. lol
:D
...-Gixer
-
You implied that Saddam is nothing more than a puppet of the US, I asked for evidence. You haven't supplied it.
Now who's putting words into who's mouth? I never said Saddam is the US' puppet, I said he was. He was actively groomed and supported by the Western powers, including the US, as a buffer to Iranian militantism. He was allowed to repress dissidents and opposition within his own country because the West needed him there. A political decision was made to back him to the hilt because the Iraqi oil fields must not fall into the hands of Iran. He was losing the Iran-Iraq war by 1982. To this end, US politicians turned a blind eye to his development of chemical weapons using materials derived from US companies, even though there was almost daily use of such weapons against Iran. There was also transfer of biological cultures from the US to Iraq during the 80s - such as anthrax and bubonic plague. This was under the auspices of 'disease control' - but even the CIA admits this was a naive assumption. This is all fully documented by your Senate based on CIA documents. It's not some crack-pot conspiracy theory.
This is a mess of the Western power's making, and that does include the US to a large degree. That's not opinion, that is fact backed up by your own government.
Well who's freakin Empire was it that diddlyed up Iraq to begin with? AND Palistine......
I know reading more than a paragraph of text is apparently difficult for you, Udie, but really you must make more of an effort if you want to follow the discussion within a thread. You'll find if you read all my replies, that I don't place blame for this situation solely at the door of the US. The whole of the Western world must carry that burden. BUT, I am arguing that there is no way anyone can deny that the US, as part of the Western world, played its part in giving Saddam the tools by which he developed these weapons while knowing full well what he was capable of.
shaddup and get out of the way....
I'm sorry... am I blocking the view of your TV? Is CNN about to re-run clips of gun camera footage from the first war? Do you have your Kleenex at the ready?
For a second there, I thought you might actually be one of the guys being sent to the Gulf. But then I realised you were just another armchair general, itching for more fireworks. Enjoy.
-
Dowding, am I being fair when I summarize your opinion as follows?:
You believe that Bush may be handling the Iraq issue properly.
And you also believe that the USA and the rest of the western world share blame for past support of Saddam H. and arming him.
-
On point 2, I absolutely agree.
On point 1, something just doesn't feel right about the case against Iraq. If the evidence for him having chemical weapons is so strong, why is there the continued effort to link him to 9-11? Why the contradictory signals between Washington and London - a 'lag' that suddenly disappears as soon as its noted. Why are certain cabinet ministers saying one thing, then being condradicted by their colleagues?
To me, North Korea is the greater threat given their recently demonstrated links with countries like the terrorist-friendly Yemen. The one positive thing is that Blair yesterday mentioned that North Korea would be next.
But defeating Iraq will be the easier part. The hard part will be providing a stable government - that will require years of occupation and lots of cash. It's not so easy to take out Saddam and then simply pack up and take out North Korea. Why not get the hard job out of the way? Is it perhaps because Bush wants a victory to take into the elections?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
It's not so easy to take out Saddam and then simply pack up and take out North Korea. Why not get the hard job out of the way? Is it perhaps because Bush wants a victory to take into the elections?
"take out North Korea" you make it sound easy, it won't be. If China objects it probably won't even be possible without using nukes. War in Korea is a losing situation for everyone.
-
My point exactly, AKIron. The only option will be a hugely drawn out diplomatic effort, backed up by military force which would reach a conclusion long after the next Presidential election. He'd much rather go for an election friendly 'quick win' (to use management speak).
But maybe I'm wrong.
-
So Dowding....if the US quit getting involved in the middle east, I suppose Europe would take the reigns and provide stability?
As to us providing support to Saddam....you enjoy the luxury of hindsight....I doubt you believe that such decisions are easily made and that solutions to some of these problems are simple and clear...of course you are a young pup.....guess you feel all good inside to criticize those who carry the full weight of having to make tough decisions, all from behind you little computer screen.
Talks cheap and you talk alot.
Strange bedfellows are part of trying to maintain stability in many parts of the world....is it a good thing or the right thing? No. The only other solution is to kill all of the radical leaders who are bent on tyranny....but then the world would cry brutal brutal....not fair not fair.
You can't have your cake and eat it too....twenty years from now you won't feel the same as you currently do and some wisdom and understanding of mankind may find it's way into your little bag of tricks...let's hope so.
-
On point 2, I absolutely agree.
On point 1, something just doesn't feel right about the case against Iraq. If the evidence for him having chemical weapons is so strong, why is there the continued effort to link him to 9-11? Why the contradictory signals between Washington and London - a 'lag' that suddenly disappears as soon as its noted. Why are certain cabinet ministers saying one thing, then being condradicted by their colleagues?
To me, North Korea is the greater threat given their recently demonstrated links with countries like the terrorist-friendly Yemen. The one positive thing is that Blair yesterday mentioned that North Korea would be next.
But defeating Iraq will be the easier part. The hard part will be providing a stable government - that will require years of occupation and lots of cash. It's not so easy to take out Saddam and then simply pack up and take out North Korea. Why not get the hard job out of the way? Is it perhaps because Bush wants a victory to take into the elections? - Dowding
I have some of the same concerns. I am actually expecting more facts and evidence against Iraq to be revealed soon - at the UN. I believe that US intelligence has evidence linking Iraq to Al Queda and it will be spelled out.
I don't see N. Korea as a bigger problem. There are diplomatic solutions there. It is becoming increasing apparent that there are no diplomatic solutions in Iraq.
The rest is politics, Dowding. Lets not be naive about the world. Although I believe Bush is principled, the number one job of all politicians is to stay in power. Does Bush recognise the fact that a victory in war might help in the elections? Probably.
But don't ignore the fact that Bush also stands to lose big for his decisions. Remember, these are politicians - and their motives for making decisions at top levels are almost never made based on a single reason. However, it is not relevant. However Bush may feel privately about that, that particular argument for war cannot be made in public. :)
We just have to wait for the facts. Meanwhile, Bush is marshaling a mighty force. I'm betting that he knows more than we do today.
-
the bottom line is this: saddam hasnt even lived up to the agreements he made at the end of the gulf war. i dont understand why we need anymore justification to take the freak out. then again...im not a political science expert!
-
Rude - revert to ad hominem attacks all you like. It just looks pretty weak considering your 'wise old man' persona. I cower in front of my screen awaiting your next pearls of wisdom. I really am not worthy.
That said... you seem to demonstrate a complete lack of reading comprehension skills. My posts are a counter argument to the 'I'm the World's Policeman and I'm sooo tired' refrain. The US can't take that particular line on Iraq, I'm afraid. It, along with the other Western powers, helped Saddam develop his weapons and maintain despotic power. The situation is the US's mess along with Western Europe. There was no hindsight - just a statement of fact.
Gunthr - I hope Bush comes up with the goods soon. Why not do a Cuban Missile Crisis in front of the security council? I'm sure that would shake things up alot.
What will be your position if Bush gives no more information in the next few weeks?
-
What will be your position if Bush gives no more information in the next few weeks? - Dowding
Oh boy. I hope that doesn't happen.
If he gives no more information and doesn't attack Iraq - no prob.
If he gives no more information and attacks Iraq - There will be a lot of trouble.
I'm comfortable with Bush as our leader, and I trust him. I could postpone full disclosure of the factors that lead to the attack if the delay was for security reasons - but not for too long.
Still, I recognise that you don't trust him, or believe he is a good leader, and there are a significant number of people who are like yourself. - There would certainly be consequences if Bush ignores this.
-
Well, I guess we are going to find out in a few weeks. :)
-
Given the events of the last century, I'd say the world needs policemen. If not us, then who? We shouldn't act alone, but we SHOULD act.
Saddam is a problem that can and should be handled. North Korea is a thornier problem. Thanks to military downsizing, over the last three decades, we no longer have the ability to seek military solutions on two fronts. I would not want to be president and have to seek solutions to these problems, as well as the terrorist threat.
Bye the by, whatever became of the rumors that Saddam was funnelling money to Al Qaeda? If that link has been proved, wouldn't that be enough of an excuse to invade Iraq and depose him?
Cut Bush some slack. Considering the major problems he has had to tackle in his first two years in office, his has not been a happy presidency.
If you absolutely, positively cannot stand the though of him being president, just relax, and remember that he only has six more years in office.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Rude - revert to ad hominem attacks all you like. It just looks pretty weak considering your 'wise old man' persona. I cower in front of my screen awaiting your next pearls of wisdom. I really am not worthy.
That said... you seem to demonstrate a complete lack of reading comprehension skills. My posts are a counter argument to the 'I'm the World's Policeman and I'm sooo tired' refrain. The US can't take that particular line on Iraq, I'm afraid. It, along with the other Western powers, helped Saddam develop his weapons and maintain despotic power. The situation is the US's mess along with Western Europe. There was no hindsight - just a statement of fact.
Gunthr - I hope Bush comes up with the goods soon. Why not do a Cuban Missile Crisis in front of the security council? I'm sure that would shake things up alot.
What will be your position if Bush gives no more information in the next few weeks?
Well, why did we help Saddam in the first place and if we were to back off from Iraq and let the UN alone sort it out, what in your opinion would be the outcome?
BTW...my reading comp skills are right on....I can spot a young idealist when I read one:)
-
Its not easy being the Great Satan...People are always second guessing your decisions on who to oppress and who to prop up.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
My posts are a counter argument to the 'I'm the World's Policeman and I'm sooo tired' refrain. The US can't take that particular line on Iraq, I'm afraid. It, along with the other Western powers, helped Saddam develop his weapons and maintain despotic power. The situation is the US's mess along with Western Europe. There was no hindsight - just a statement of fact.
Well, ok, can we clean up our mess in Iraq and then retire Dowding? Would that be ok with you?
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Its not easy being the Great Satan...People are always second guessing your decisions on who to oppress and who to prop up.
Ain't it the truth!
Course, I bet it's not easy havin to suck hind titty either:)
-
Help,
Im being oppressed!