Bush Speech

[Zero]

This zeal for cleansing the whole world of tyranny and making it 100% democratic is prolly remnant of cold war propaganda to blame.

[monkspider]

America has no zeal for spreading Democracy, only zeal for spreading governments friendly to the USA.

[chequita guevara]

How can you tell when the President is lying?

His lips move.

[David Floyd]

This speech did nothing to change my opinion. I was totally, 100%, absolutely against war before, and that has not changed one bit.

I don't want Saddam removed from power, I don't want no fly zones enforced, I don't want weapons inspections, I don't want us trying to stop Saddam from getting nukes, and I don't want us dicking around with Iraq's sovereignty. I don't want America in the Middle East at all.

Saddam poses absolutely no threat to the United States, in the absence of US provocation. Yes, yes, Fez and others, I realize that if we invade Iraq there's a possibility of our troops being nuked or gassed. Seems to me, then, the simple solution is to not invade Iraq.

You do realize, don't you, that if the US stopped threatening Iraq (and perhaps apologized for the Persian Gulf War), then Iraq would be no threat to the US at all, right? We could buy our oil from them and we could let US oil companies assist in developing the massive untapped Iraqi oil reserves. This oil could be a great boon to the Iraqi economy. Perhaps this could provide the capital for increased Iraqi industrialization, and with free trade and the absence of US threats, new markets could be opened. You say that Saddam is too much of a dictator to let anything benefit the Iraqi people? Well, he can't live forever. We should look to the long term, and in the long term, there is no clear absolute successor to Saddam, and if we take steps now to better relations with Iraq, and show our good faith, then in the future there is at least the possibility of a change in Iraq's politics.

Change through peace is the key, not change through war. All war will do is harden opposition to the United States. We saw how well war in Afghanistan stabilized that country, didn't we? Maybe it's better than the Taliban (or maybe not, depending on who you ask - people getting hurt by higher crime rates might disagree), but it's certainly not stable.

In the same vein, we should stop enforcing the ridiculous no-fly zones. I mean, the very idea is preposterous. If Canada decided to set up and enforce a no fly zone over Minnesota, we'd laugh at them. The only difference between that and an Iraqi no fly zone is the fact that the US is stronger than Iraq. That's it. Period. Canada has just as much a right as the US does to set up no fly zones - absolutely none. Does this mean that might makes right? I should certainly hope no one believes that.

And about Iraqi air defenses tracking or firing on Coalition aircraft? So what? Hell, I'm on THEIR side in this - I'd be doing the same thing, and personally I hope they manage to shoot down a few. Our solution to ending shootdowns is to bomb Iraqi installations. This is a very flawed solution. If we don't want our planes getting shot at, take them out of the area they are in. It's not as if they are defending US airspace or anything like that.

Weapons inspections? What do I care how many weapons Iraq has? That doesn't affect me a bit. But, you say, what if they invade and take over Middle Eastern oil? Well, IF they did that, we'd simply buy our oil from Greater Iraq. Whatever. But they CAN'T do that. You can't use Kuwait as an example of hostile intent - Kuwait probably WAS stealing Iraqi oil. Granted, Iraq still shouldn't have invaded, but it wasn't blatant Iraqi aggression either.

And does anyone really believe that Iraq has the ability to defeat Saudi Arabia to the degree that it occupies Saudi oil fields? Sorry, don't see it happening - the Saudi economy is bigger than Iraq's, and the Saudis have far superior military equipment. They would have unquestioned air superiority, much to the same degree the US did in the Gulf War. Anyone who uses the argument that if we don't invade Iraq they will invade all their neighbors and take over the world's oil supply (as if it belongs to us, anyway) is just not thinking.

Nuclear weapons? Well, Israel has them. We don't ***** about that. For that matter, the US, Britain, France, Russia, and China have them, and we don't ***** about that either. Russia has certainly been run by people just as bad as Saddam (Stalin and Brezhnev, anyone?), and it can certainly be argued that various US Presidents shouldn't have had access to the Bomb what with their blatant aggression against other countries. For that matter, the US is the only nation to ever even USE nuclear weapons in combat, and WE used them against defenseless CIVILIANS. I don't want to hear any moralizing about how it's wrong for Iraq to get nukes.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The best way to combat terrorism against the US is not military action. On the contrary, the best way is to withdraw the military from the Middle East, withdraw biased support from Israel and put all Middle Eastern powers on the same level, enact free trade policies with EVERYONE, and basically treat other nations with respect. If we take away the reason for terrorists to attack us, we will take away the majority of the terrorism. How many terrorist actions take place every year in Switzerland or Sweden, do you imagine? I'd imagine not very many. Why not? Well, because no one has any reason to terrorize them. And don't bring up the ridiculous argument that terrorists hate the US because the US is rich. That's preposterous - Sweden and Switzerland are rich too. So is Lichtenstein. And Monaco. If it was just an anti-rich thing, lot's of nations would be getting it as bad or worse than the US.

[Nubclear]

GREAT post David. I totally and completly agree with you..

Can't wait till Fez starts posting

[Boris Godunov]

Yeah, Floyd is right.









This time...

[DanS]

"You can't use Kuwait as an example of hostile intent"

Do you realize how silly this sounds?

[David Floyd]

[David Floyd]

Do you realize how silly this sounds?

I certainly do, when you quote me out of context.

[Propaganda]

Rally around your family!

...With a pocket full of shells...

[Ned]

I was watching the Civilization channel the other day. They said that Roman foreign policy became "pre-emptive" after a certain point in time. They would identify potential threats and eliminated them before they got to be a major problem.

Sound familiar?

[Seeker]

After Pyhrrus, and with a vengeance after Hannibal.

Certainly Flamininus's campaign against Macedonia was an example.

1. step one, guarantee the independance of small states against a regional aggressor who traditionally dominates the region.

2. When that regional power inevitably violates these 'bounds', kick its ass cause you're more powerful.

3. Revamp the Achaean League and declare 'freedom for all Greeks'.

4. Find that you can't disengage from the politics of this region.

5. Occupy and conquer the people whose 'freedom' you were fighting for a few years ago (Corinth, Acarnania)

[Kepler]

I'll bet it was about the point when there were no longer any states or even small set of leading states that could even theoretically gang up on and conquer them.

The Past 200 Years: Up

The US has passed a milestone: we're "it." For a while we got to share that distinction with the Russians, and even after they folded it took the Chinese a little while until they pulled into their 6,000 year old turtle shell. But now there's nothing else for it -- we're it.

We've been aiming for it ever since Jefferson decided that even though Hamilton (the first neocon ;-) was a jerk, he did have a point about major states being safer than minor states. We got a big kick towards it with industrialized warfare in the Civil War, and then a few exhibition games leading up to... well, a kind of half-court game in Flanders in 1918.

And then it became our raison d'etre in the 40's when we had a really good excuse to kick out the jams and really build ourselves a giant military-economic-industrial Harley with a cute diplomatic kick stand, and take our motor runnin'...

So, we've really only being trying hard for 60 years, but looks like we made it -- undisputed king of the hill. But where do you go when you run out of up?

The Next 200 Years: Out

You expand and in the beginning it's great, because as your zone of control gets bigger the bad guys are even farther and farther away. This goes on for a looooooooong time, until you are thinning and maybe even a little overextended. Then one day the millionth punk teenager with a Colt challenges you from the next bar stool, only this time you're a fraction slower and out to boot hill you go, feet first.

[Roland]

Well Imperial Rome used to destroy potential powers if they could. But they failed with the Parthians, the Sassanides, and even with Marbod due to the illyrian insurrection.

In the end imperial overstretch made it impossible to win decisive victories against all enemies.

Sound familiar ?

[Urban Ranger]

Dubya makes yet another speech? Surely he loves the limelight no doubt.

[Giancarlo]

Can I ask those who oppose if they would like to die a death from a ****ing chemcial or biological weapon? I didn't think so. So start using damn common sense and support the removal of Saddam Hussein. If he held a gun to the head of a family member and executed them, like he does with his own people and even his own family, who then would you support? I hope you are not that blind.

I don't give a crap about UN or international mumble jumble law, this man has to go. The UN can or cannot help. It doesn't matter. The man is going. If you are so blind to say no, then go to your nearest library and do a damn research project on nuclear/biological or chemical weapons... and see the after effects of them. Since Saddam has proven he is willing to use against the Iranians and Kurds, I wouldn't count on him not using them again. Now get some damn common sense for a change you anti-war fanatics and start using logic. 2+2=4. 2+2 does not equal 5. It just doesn't. In drawing adequate parallels you are claiming it does. Take this equation: Iraq + Saddam = Misery, Death, and possible WMD strike against 1st world countries). This equation is so damn true it is unbelieveable. Now take into mind.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by Fez
It was an excellent speech and I hope the misled anti-war crowd will finally see their faults and swithc over

[DanS]

"Dubya makes yet another speech? Surely he loves the limelight no doubt."

Looked at another way, this guy is impressively persistent.

[GePap]

How many times has Iraq used WMD against hapless and helpless enemies? 2- Iran and Kurds.

How many times has Iraq used WMD aganist enemies with the ability to hit back harder than he can? 0.

Can you get that math Fez? Or is it too difficult for yah. here's some help:

US + 6000 nukes > Iraq + 1.
US with 6000 nukes> iraq + Anthrax, VMX, Sarin, Mustard Gas, so forth + 1 nuke.

I loved the part of the US trying war criminals! Under what legal pretext? Would the US give the case to that evil ICJ? Yeah, some Iraqi general, who most liekly would be imprisoned or killed in a post Saddam Iraq wil not do what saddam wants cause the US wil label him a war criminal. If you belie that, raise your hands! OK, no the ones that did, do the genepool a favor and jump out a window.

Again, it was a well given speech, and for the masses, it works. Is it great speech that will change the minds of anyone? You look at the poll.

[David Floyd]

Can I ask those who oppose if they would like to die a death from a ****ing chemcial or biological weapon?

No.

If [Saddam Hussein] held a gun to the head of a family member and executed them, like he does with his own people and even his own family, who then would you support?

Well, duh, he isn't executing Americans. If the Iraqi people wish to depose him, fine, but it's their problem.

I don't give a crap about UN or international mumble jumble law, this man has to go.

So the US should violate treaties it willingly agreed to whenever it feels like it, without first legally withdrawing from them?

The UN can or cannot help. It doesn't matter. The man is going. If you are so blind to say no, then go to your nearest library and do a damn research project on nuclear/biological or chemical weapons... and see the after effects of them.

Yes, the first book I'll look up would be those showing pictures of the aftereffects of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Don't give me your ****, Fez. Stop using emotion-filled nonsense and rhetoric and state some facts for once.

Since Saddam has proven he is willing to use against the Iranians and Kurds, I wouldn't count on him not using them again. Now get some damn common sense for a change you anti-war fanatics and start using logic. 2+2=4. 2+2 does not equal 5. It just doesn't.

GePap already gave you a nice lesson in math. See his post and study hard. All I can add is that still haven't proved the case that Iraq will use WoDs against the US in the absence of US provocation.

In drawing adequate parallels you are claiming it does. Take this equation: Iraq + Saddam = Misery, Death, and possible WMD strike against 1st world countries). This equation is so damn true it is unbelieveable.

Unbelievable - yes I'll go with you on that one

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by GePap
How many times has Iraq used WMD against hapless and helpless enemies? 2- Iran and Kurds.

Iran ? Helpless ?

[Kontiki]

Iran? Able to strike back hard?

edit: The Iranians had about the same ability to counter attack the Iraqis as the Kurds did/do.

[Saint Marcus]

you all do know that the west supplied Sadam with the technology to fight Iran, don't you?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
you do know that the west supplied Sadam with the technology to fight Iran, don't you?

If you're talking to me, of course I do. Which is exactly why Iran had no ability to strike back hard.

[Amadan]

Originally posted by Fez
I won't demonize you Kepler. I just am angry at the people who don't want to take action.

Some of us don't oppose action, we just oppose arrogant unilateral action garanteed to alienate the majority of our allies (except for Blair, who is starting to be called a 'pretty poodle' and a lapdog by the British press).

I also am more inclined to listen to those who have actually served in the military who suggest that we wait for mulitlateral agreements before acting.
(Link to the Washington Post story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true )

[Saint Marcus]

If you're talking to me

sorry, didn't mean it at you personally, but to all people here. edited it now.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Roland
Well Imperial Rome used to destroy potential powers if they could. But they failed with the Parthians, the Sassanides, and even with Marbod due to the illyrian insurrection.

In the end imperial overstretch made it impossible to win decisive victories against all enemies.

Sound familiar ?

Roland, except for a few instances after the Republic, the Empire went into a defensive shell. It no longer ran a preemptive foreign policy. The exceptions were Claudius's conquest of Britain and Trajan's conquest of Dacia. I think this defensive posture in the end doomed them because they allowed large powers to grow on their borders that eventually destroyed the Empire: the Germans, Goths, Persians and Arabs.

So long as the policy of pre-emption was in place, the Empire grew and prospered.

While Saddam is an easy case, there does appear to be a growing view, if not a consensus, here that the United States must pursue a policy of pre-emption to ward off further 9/11 attacks. We have found that our surrounding oceans are no longer sufficient protection from terrorism. We must therefore actively seek out terrorist bases and destroy them. But as terrorism cannot succeed without the shelter and support of nations, we are forced to take out terrorist nations as well.

I think even after Iraq you will see America much less "forgiving" of nations that harbor anti-American terrorists. We will expect full suppression of terrorist bases and an end to support of terrorists - or else.

Let's begin marking the gun handle.

I - The Taliban
II - Saddam Hussein

Who is III?

[Saint Marcus]

It no longer ran a preemptive foreign policy.

The Empire launched several invasions into Parthian and Sassanid lands, with mixed success, long after the end of the Republic.

[Saint Marcus]

Who is III?

some other plucky third world nation

The US wouldn't dare to attack China, or Pakistan (who both have WomDs, who both are dictatorships, and the Pakistani support terrorism). Hypocracy.

[Ramo]

Let me guess Shrub still hasn't revealed his incredibly brilliant and righteous plan about what to do after Saddam is gone.