View Full Version : President Bush's speach...
PaleDuke
09-11-02, 10:08 PM
Whadya think ?
He did alright in my book. I was really worried he was gonna start in about Iraq and the coming expansion of police actions but he laid low. That was a relief. A few too many religious blessing requests in his closing remarks but that's cool.
msan_msw
09-11-02, 10:22 PM
I only watched it briefly. It was more of a ceremonial speech to me and I'm sure he did a fine job. The speech I'm more concerned with is on Thursday when he addresses the U.N. General Assembly specifically about Iraq. I suppose I'll just leave it at that :)
It was gay ass. "This nation is patient" - I view that as an excuse of our failures, and it fits perfectly. We ain't done shit and the president knows it.
God screw America.
opus512
09-11-02, 11:18 PM
Originally posted by Ibanez
It was gay ass. "This nation is patient" - I view that as an excuse of our failures, and it fits perfectly. We ain't done shit and the president knows it.
God screw America.
My, aren't we the metaphorical urine bubbles in the collective bowl of cheerios :P
msan_msw
09-11-02, 11:21 PM
Hmmmm....
Originally posted by opus512
My, aren't we the metaphorical urine bubbles in the collective bowl of cheerios :P
A bowl of cereal sounds good right now.
On topic: Go terroist. Keep pushing this giant peice of tard called "America" until we crumble. I wan't to go back the stone age again.
msan_msw
09-11-02, 11:23 PM
Originally posted by Slacker
Here's the rules:
All discussions must stay on topic. I thought about calling the forum "On Topic", but thought it would be confusing. Regardless, no hijacking or spam is allowed in here.
Uh, that's about it. Let me know if something isn't clear.
dookiebot
09-12-02, 08:24 AM
Originally posted by Ibanez
I wan't to go back the stone age again.
lol riiiight.
Dr. Feelgood
09-12-02, 10:15 AM
I wouldn't worry about it too much, especially if you are of religious inclination.
God will punish them, PROVIDED the US is honoring God. If it's not, they will get what is coming to them. This is a time honored principle that has happened again and again since biblical times. Israel, Egypt, Soddom and Gomorrah, Rome, Assyria and more all fell victim to this principle.
Currently, the Islamic nations have it coming to them. God may very well utilize the US to destroy them. Time will tell.
The same goes for the Palestinians. God vowed to protect the Israelites, his chosen nation. He vowed to bless those that protected Israel and punish those that persecuted them.
This is one reason that Bush is standing behind Israel. Arafat and chronies are doomed.
As a matter of fact, WW3 will be a result of nations of the world ganging up on Israel and being wiped out. Should be an interesting show.
:)
Originally posted by dookiebot
lol riiiight.
I was expecting something more along the lines of....
"mentally... you already are"
:owned:
Originally posted by Dr. Feelgood
God will punish them, PROVIDED the US is honoring God. If it's not, they will get what is coming to them. This is a time honored principle that has happened again and again since biblical times. Israel, Egypt, Soddom and Gomorrah, Rome, Assyria and more all fell victim to this principle.
Err... Right... Sure...
God will punish them... Then why bother invading Afghanistan in the first place? Is the US god? Is Bush god? Are you?
I was dissappointed. However I currently am dissappointed in the situation in general. We haven't done crap. He sounded like he was just business as usual no real promises just a nice purty sounding speech with no fire. Way too passive I wanted hear some anger and that perhaps we are gonna do something.
sj_hurst
09-12-02, 07:49 PM
Well IMO, President Bush is more Moderate than Conservative and it shows through in his speech. Also, he wants to have a shot at re-election. If he doesn't go through political and social channels, it's likely that he'd kill his chances for re-election. Regardless, I think we should do more about Iraq. It's just that most countries are weenies when it comes to being involved in a war. Personally, I think that they're afraid of Muslim terrorist retaliation. Or just plain old Arab retaliation... Arab peoples are very communal. Attack one of their groups and they could all unite. It's not a pleasant thought and gives people strong reasons to oppose action in the Middle East.
Originally posted by sj_hurst
It's just that most countries are weenies when it comes to being involved in a war.
Or maybe it's because people in other countries don't beleive that the US can attack whoever the hell it wants.
sj_hurst
09-12-02, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by Wamphyr
Or maybe it's because people in other countries don't beleive that the US can attack whoever the hell it wants.
That's true too. But it's "and," not "or." Iraq should comply with UN resolutions one way or another. The resolutions are on paper, but they're not being enforced. The UN doesn't have the balls to enforce its own policies.
Originally posted by sj_hurst
Iraq should comply with UN resolutions one way or another.
Exactly, it's the UN's business.
Originally posted by sj_hurst
The UN doesn't have the balls to enforce its own policies.
Maybe the UN is trying to avoid a war, rather than begin one.
opus512
09-13-02, 01:05 AM
Originally posted by Wamphyr
Exactly, it's the UN's business.
Maybe the UN is trying to avoid a war, rather than begin one.
The UN's business is our business.
The UN doesn't have the ability to enforce, through force, their resolutions anyway, barely in some third world shit spot countries, let alone one with a standing army like Iraq's.
Unfortunatly, I think Saddam is only going to comply through force, or at the least, through the real, tangible threat of force after a massive build up right on his front door.
sj_hurst
09-13-02, 01:23 AM
How many years have those UN sanctions been in place? The facts remain. Saddam was given an ultimatum over 10 years ago. He has openly defied that ultimatum the entire time.
Originally posted by opus512
The UN's business is our business.
So anything that concerns the UN, instantly becomes your business? Wow, and here I was thinking that the US was only a part of the UN, rather than in charge of it, how stupid of me.
sj_hurst
09-13-02, 03:55 AM
Originally posted by Wamphyr
So anything that concerns the UN, instantly becomes your business? Wow, and here I was thinking that the US was only a part of the UN, rather than in charge of it, how stupid of me.
You're putting words in his mouth. The UN's business is a primary concern and matter of business directly involving the U.S., especially when we consider how the U.S. a top contributor and participant. Obviously, none of that says that the U.S. controls the UN. Please stop trying to insult other people's intelligence. That's just rude. :P :D
Originally posted by sj_hurst
You're putting words in his mouth. The UN's business is a primary concern and matter of business directly involving the U.S., especially when we consider how the U.S. a top contributor and participant. Obviously, none of that says that the U.S. controls the UN.
I think we might be getting slightly OT here (I feel it is still connected though), but I'm not arguing that it's not the US' business what happens to the UN, because it most certainly is, but the US has no right to use an excuse that isn't any of it's concern.
Let's just say you have 2 classrooms of children. You are in A, and another child is in A. Yet another child is in B.
Now let's just say that the child from classroom B breaks an agreement with the child that is in A, now if you walk over and punch the child from classroom B and use the excuse that he broke an agreement with someone in the same class as you, you would be wrong, would you not?
It's just on a larger scale here, and more is at stake.
Please stop trying to insult other people's intelligence. That's just rude. :P :D
You're putting an undercurrent into my posts, that's also rude.
I wouldn't insult Opus' intelligence anyway, I agree with him on quite a lot of things.
PaleDuke
09-13-02, 07:42 AM
Originally posted by Dr. Feelgood
I wouldn't worry about it too much, especially if you are of religious inclination.
God will punish them, PROVIDED the US is honoring God. If it's not, they will get what is coming to them. This is a time honored principle that has happened again and again since biblical times. Israel, Egypt, Soddom and Gomorrah, Rome, Assyria and more all fell victim to this principle.
Currently, the Islamic nations have it coming to them. God may very well utilize the US to destroy them. Time will tell.
The same goes for the Palestinians. God vowed to protect the Israelites, his chosen nation. He vowed to bless those that protected Israel and punish those that persecuted them.
This is one reason that Bush is standing behind Israel. Arafat and chronies are doomed.
As a matter of fact, WW3 will be a result of nations of the world ganging up on Israel and being wiped out. Should be an interesting show.
:)
http://boards.slackercentral.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=419968#post419968
opus512
09-13-02, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by Wamphyr
So anything that concerns the UN, instantly becomes your business? Wow, and here I was thinking that the US was only a part of the UN, rather than in charge of it, how stupid of me.
The UN's business is ever countries business, just happen to be more so ours then most. Simple fact, we pay more then any other country in dues (when we pay the dues, heh), we supply more military then any single country, the UN is headquartered in our country, we're a permenant member on the security councel, there are a number of reasons. Not saying we are all high and mighty, we just have more interest then most other countries, so yes, it is our business. You should know me better then that to think I meant what you think I meant :P
Originally posted by opus512
The UN's business is ever countries business, just happen to be more so ours then most. Simple fact, we pay more then any other country in dues (when we pay the dues, heh), we supply more military then any single country, the UN is headquartered in our country, we're a permenant member on the security councel, there are a number of reasons. Not saying we are all high and mighty, we just have more interest then most other countries, so yes, it is our business. You should know me better then that to think I meant what you think I meant :P
My point still stands.
sj_hurst
09-13-02, 06:04 PM
This isn't about a bunch of children getting along. It's about doing the best thing to ensure our future safety. The prospects of dealing with madman with nuclear weapons at his fingertips is far more frightening than listening to the temper tantrums of other UN nations.
My point stands as well and it over-rides yours in importance. Iraq broke an agreement, albeit a forced agreement. The U.S. wants to lead the way to take care of untended business. Other countries don't because they're overwhelmed with fear. They are afraid that the Arab world will turn on them as they've done to the U.S. IMO, their fear should come secondary to any U.S. dealings with a potential rogue nuclear state. It might be a good idea to wait a little longer, but it's been over ten years and Saddam has not yet complied with UN demands.
Originally posted by sj_hurst
This isn't about a bunch of children getting along.
Pay attention much?
It's about doing the best thing to ensure our future safety. The prospects of dealing with madman with nuclear weapons at his fingertips is far more frightening than listening to the temper tantrums of other UN nations.
Well I hate to spoil your fun, but the US isn't the only nation on this planet that will be affected by another war with Iraq.
My point stands as well and it over-rides yours in importance.
Sure it does.
Iraq broke an agreement, albeit a forced agreement. The U.S. wants to lead the way to take care of untended business. Other countries don't because they're overwhelmed with fear. They are afraid that the Arab world will turn on them as they've done to the U.S. IMO, their fear should come secondary to any U.S. dealings with a potential rogue nuclear state. It might be a good idea to wait a little longer, but it's been over ten years and Saddam has not yet complied with UN demands.
The US still doesn't have any right to attack Iraq in the name of the UN without approval, if the US gets UN approval, knock yourselves out. But from what I'm hearing, the US doesn't think it needs UN approval.
sj_hurst
09-13-02, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by Wamphyr
Pay attention much?
Yes.
Originally posted by Wamphyr
Well I hate to spoil your fun, but the US isn't the only nation on this planet that will be affected by another war with Iraq.
I know. That's where their fear comes from.
Originally posted by Wamphyr
Sure it does.
It does from my point of view. I'd rather deal with an upset UN than a nuclear threat from Saddam.
Originally posted by Wamphyr
The US still doesn't have any right to attack Iraq in the name of the UN without approval, if the US gets UN approval, knock yourselves out. But from what I'm hearing, the US doesn't think it needs UN approval.
The U.S. won't attack in the name of the UN. I'll attack in the name of freedom (from tyranny and terror).
opus512
09-13-02, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by Wamphyr
My point still stands.
But your point could be said about any number of countries, especialy any of the five permenant members.
opus512
09-13-02, 09:13 PM
Originally posted by sj_hurst
The U.S. won't attack in the name of the UN. I'll attack in the name of freedom (from tyranny and terror).
Ah come on now, not even you can believe that completely ;)
sj_hurst
09-13-02, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by opus512
Ah come on now, not even you can believe that completely ;)
You're right of course. It sounds noble on the surface, but it is some ways it is even if it's used mainly for PR purposes. I realize that governments have other motives, like improving the conditions of their respective economies. But hey, we all need money, even the governments. Regardless, if something happens, Saddam has it coming. No matter how much other people sugar coat this scenario (by suggesting that the Iraqis government wants peace :rolleyes: ), I believe that Saddam is a ruthless dictator. If he wanted economic prosperity along with peace, he would've complied with UN resolutions a long time ago.
opus512
09-13-02, 11:07 PM
I agree that Saddam has done any number of things that would warrant taking him out, but what I have a problem with is continued US hypocrisy on it, and being as it's my country, the hypocricy rubs me the wrong way that much more.
We supported Saddam for a decade against Iran, hundreds of millions of dollars, biological weapons stock, logistics, what ever. The biological weapons is what he used against his own people, the logistics we provided him helped him carry it out.
If Saddam had succeded in taking our Iran, we would be great buddies right now, that's the kind of think stink that bothers me about our government. Most of what we are accusing him of now, we helped him do.
El Stinko.
Take him out, fine, he has it coming, but don't make shit up to cover our own complicity.
Originally posted by Ibanez
It was gay ass. "This nation is patient" - I view that as an excuse of our failures, and it fits perfectly. We ain't done shit and the president knows it.
God screw America.
ahhh.. The instant gratification generation speaks.
sj_hurst
09-14-02, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by opus512
I agree that Saddam has done any number of things that would warrant taking him out, but what I have a problem with is continued US hypocrisy on it, and being as it's my country, the hypocricy rubs me the wrong way that much more.
We supported Saddam for a decade against Iran, hundreds of millions of dollars, biological weapons stock, logistics, what ever. The biological weapons is what he used against his own people, the logistics we provided him helped him carry it out.
If Saddam had succeded in taking our Iran, we would be great buddies right now, that's the kind of think stink that bothers me about our government. Most of what we are accusing him of now, we helped him do.
El Stinko.
Take him out, fine, he has it coming, but don't make shit up to cover our own complicity.
Hindsight is 20/20 and Bush Jr. had no involvement in any Iraqis military aid. The man wasn't even in politics at that time. Playing the blame game isn't as easy as it seems. There are a few major flaws in democracy. Term limits allow for limited accountability. IMO, guilt through association is not a fair concept. Being associated with the Republican Party is not the same thing as being associated with a former administration's policies. Despite these flaws (perceived or real), the U.S. government does a fairly decent job. Some of the politicians who supported Iraq were also involved in the process of ending the Cold War. Politics is not as black and white as it seems. Politicians are people too and they make mistakes just the same.
opus512
09-14-02, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by sj_hurst
Hindsight is 20/20 and Bush Jr. had no involvement in any Iraqis military aid. The man wasn't even in politics at that time.
I'm not blaiming Jr personaly for what the government did 20 years ago.
But if you want to get technical, can you say 'Daddy'? I knew you could ;) :D
If we wait for the UN to take action...the globe will be reduced to smoking rubble while the pontificate and argue and the UN would be a moot point.
sj_hurst
09-14-02, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by opus512
I'm not blaiming Jr personaly for what the government did 20 years ago.
But if you want to get technical, can you say 'Daddy'? I knew you could ;) :D
I'm not aware of Bush Sr.'s involvement in giving aid to Iraq. However, I've seen reports that indicate how he has helped with giving aid to Iran.
http://www.imt.net/~mtpatriot/ciafund.htm
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.