President Bush's speech (page 6)

Dismembered

Hi Coqui

My hat gives my political side of the isle away. There's just no hiding it.

Dismembered

Edited by - Dismembered on 8 October 2002 7:33:45

I agree we must look at all issues with objectivity and not make it fit into one parties whole agenda. I must say though, I would fit more on the conservative side. Guess I have seen enough DUBS freeloading off friends and family for years just waiting.

pettygrudger

#1 - Nothing G.Bush said is anything that we haven't known for 10 years now - duh!

#2 - Rhetoric & fear is a great weapon of control - we've all been there/done that - that's what that speech was about. Scare the people to promote his own agenda - the upset of Sadam Hussein. Should Sadam go - probably. Should the U.S. be the one to make that decision? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!! We're already in enough "deep pucky" w/our foreign policy as it is (look at all the International treaties we've backed out of because it wasn't in the "american workers" best interests)!!!! The UN should be the only one to make this decision. Does that leave us "exposed" to another attack from Iraq - probably. Still, its best to err on the side of caution imho. Pre-emptive strikes will incur the wrath of other middle eastern countries that have tried to remain "allies" with the U.S.. Bush & his cabinet have made it abundently clear that not only do they want Sadam out - but a "democratic" regime in. WHO ARE WE TO DECIDE?

#3 - It leave open to many other countries a "go to war" free card. If the U.S. & Isreal can continuously disregard all resolutions (which Isreal has been doing for years now) made by the UN - who are we to say that ANYONE should have to uphold the UN resolutions? Hypocritical at best.

#4 - None of this would be happening if we would review our protection of Isreal. Yesterday, they bombed a Palestinian HOSPITAL because they said there were gunmen inside. That's just a small sample of the atrocities that Isreal has committed against the palestinian people. The only crap you hear about on the news is what the Palestinians have done w/the suicide bombings. There's 2 sides to this story & we're only listening to Isreals.

Rhonda (ducking before Yerusalyim slams her!)

hawkaw

Amasing,

I agree with your post on page 1.

There is one thing I want to say about the way some are hacking up Bush not prouncing nuclear properly. Well .... 99.9 percent of Americans and Canadians don't know how to properly prounce Iraq or Iran including all those reporters who were hacking up Bush's pronouncation skills a few days ago. Its thoroughly disgusting in my mind.

In any event I am still not convinced about Bush 43's plan. I would completely understand this craziness, if Bush 43 just wanted to go to war because he wants Iraq oil supply secured and thus, get the price of oil dropped.

My big concern was Bush 41's concern - destablization of the region. The northern part of Iraq is a lot different than the south and it could cause all sorts of problems with Iraq and Turkey.

There is no difference in the dictatorships of Saudi Arabia and Iraq except one family likes the USA and the other does not. Both harbour terrorists and give them money.

I just don't know about all this.

hawk

wasasister

Well said, Hawkaw. I honestly see both sides of the political arena stating much the same thing.

That was my original point: there is no reason to paste a label on someone who questions what the president says. Just because I want good reasons before invading another country does not make me a "pacifist" nor a "liberal". It makes me smart.

Edited by - wasasister on 8 October 2002 9:3:37

RevMalk


	nowaytess it's amazing why people would dwell on his sex life, let me ask you this, what right do you have to force your morals on Clinton? Don't you think it was up to his wife? It's funny noone else in this entire world cared about this, accept the republicans. I'd rather have a president getting a blow job, then one that would be quick to use a war machine. It's funny we did nothing to stop pakistan or india from getting nukes, and I'm more afraid of them using them, than Iraq, which hasn't been proven to have any at all, and pakistan houses alot of terrorist groups. Hell Israel has nukes, and they aren't any better then any other country in that region, and we give them over 5 billion a year. I also made mention to the man's sex life, but in reality that's none of my business. What is my business is that he decided he HAD to do this in the oval office. I think we have a right to judge when someone disrespects our country and what it stands for. But even besides that fact, everyone has a right to their own opinion, otherwise you'd have had no right to have an opinion on that opinion (see how that works?) As for Bush and his war machine, what way would you have it? Take a chance on a big fat nuke landing square on your head? Whether Saddam has them at this moment or not means nothing, we know he's in the market. So what's the difference between Saddam having these toys and Pakistan, India and Israel? Well, I'm personally not all that comfortable with that either, but at least they're not showing immediate signs of being a US threat. Sharon, however, is someone to worry about in my opinion, he's a madman and he's dangerous. Israel is a classic example of allowing things to go too far, we should have shut them down a long long time ago. So what are we to do with Saddam? A guy who kills his own people testing his warfare, a man who shows remarkable resemblance to Adolph Hitler (with 1/10 of the intelligence). I say shut him down, shut them all down before it's too late. The only thing I worry about, is that Bush tends to flap his lips a bit too much to too many powers.....I agree he might better take it easy and fight one battle at a time. So....Let's start with Saddam, and do it quickly before China and Russia have their way with us (which is inevitable in my opinion). At this point in history I think we can start chanting "Stay Alive till 2005!" (30 year Anniversary, haha), and if China hasn't destroyed us by then we can count ourselves lucky, and you can't blame Bush for that, they want to take everyone out, we're just a World Power standing in their way, and we're top on the list of several others (Japan, Taiwan, etc). The world is a mess, it's time to choose our weapons, and may the best side win.

nowaytess

I put it to you this way, If President Clinotn admitted he had an affair when asked, the public would have forgiven him.

He obstucted justice by lying. How many more women was Clinton going to rape and abused? I certainly do not want a rapist or a man who uses his power of the public offices he voted in for forcing himself on women who don't want to have sex with him.

Monica wanted the sex but she ws a nasty woman by having that dress all that time. I don't know how many women would of cleaned the dress a long time ago.

YOu ask the last question why should I ask to hold a standard of morality? Simple it is because he ask for our trust when a President ask for our vote to the highest office in the land. If a Presidents moral don't count to you then your vote that way.

I think Bush made a great case for premtive stike. I notice he is giving Sadamm Sometime to comply, but sadly Saddam won't. He has had 11 years to comply.

RevMalk

How many more women was Clinton going to rape and abused? I certainly do not want a rapist or a man who uses his power of the public offices he voted in for forcing himself on women who don't want to have sex with him.
Whoa! Hold on......why are we accusing the man of being a rapist?????
Is there something I'm unaware of, or was that a totally rediculous statement? In my opinion, (if that was unfounded) this is just as disrespectful to our Nation as Clinton himself.

Edited by - Revmalk on 8 October 2002 9:33:26

email

We started this thread by talking about the way he pronounces certain words... I rather have people complaining about his mispronunciations than lying under oath to the world (like some Other president). Some things people forget about our president is that he is a YALE Graduate with an M.B.A from Harvard. He was an F-102 Pilot for the Texas National Guard. And was an accomplished businessman both as the owner of the Texas Ranger and head of major multi-billion dollar Oil Company. I do agree though about the argument on his pronunciation but why are we BASHING him JUST FOR THAT!!... Look at the whole picture and just IMAGINE what would've happened if AL Gore had won the election! That wouldve been CATASTROPHIC in my opinion I really think he has handled very well the situation Does anyone here have better curriculum vitae?

On a lighter note I think this is really funny:

(if the image doesn't show... try clicking on it)

<<email>>

Edited by - email on 8 October 2002 10:14:5

Darkhorse

I believe Saddam is a poison snake who should be stopped. I have never been an advocate of war but after 9/11, I can see the importance of stopping those who are known to be threats to the world. If Adolph Hitler had been stopped sooner (instead of people being in denial), all the Jews who were annihilated in concentration camps would not have died.

Either way, it is not good. If nothing is done about Saddam I do believe something will happen which will be much worse than 9/11.

If a move again Saddam is made, lives will also be lost; but hopefully Saddam and Osama will be stopped before there is no more world.

As for the pronunciation of nuclear, well, it does not mean the person is uneducated because they do not pronounce the word correctly. I work for a facility that produces nuclear product for the health care industry. We all mess up on the way we say nuclear (even the highly educated Phd's employed at our facility). My husband does the same thing, and I have gone over the "proper pronunciation of nuclear" with him many times. He just cannot say it correctly no matter how hard he tries. I just do not pay attention, small issue, I know what the person means.

President Bush's speech

Share this