Bush Speech Thread - Page 2

Caesar the Great · March 17, 2003, 22:04

My biggest problem is why do we wait until now to declare war? We know he wants to develop weapons of mass destruction, we know he is willing to use them, why allow him to develop any capabilities? The second he kicked the inspectors out we should have threatened retalliation, he attacked Kuwait, he lost the war, why should we play his game? As long as inspectors are in his country it significantly limits his offense capabilities, but as soon as they are removed he is free to do whatever he wants.

Why have we waited not days, not weeks, not months but years for action to be taken against him? There is a place for diplomacy, but what has happened the past several years is not diplomacy, it is appeasement.

My only hope is that the Iraqi army can see that they have no way of winning the war and surrender. The Iraqi's shouldn't have to pay the price for their dictator's actions.

Imran Siddiqui · March 17, 2003, 22:06

I really wonder about all these people that say even if Saddam leaves, we'll invade. Are these posters really serious?

Drake Tungsten · March 17, 2003, 22:07

Quote:

Why have we waited not days, not weeks, not months but years for action to be taken against him?

Clinton, the best European president we ever had. Jimmy Carter, of course, being the worst...

Urban Ranger · March 17, 2003, 22:07

The conclusion from that is clear. The so called "WoMD" is merely a pretext.

Caesar the Great · March 17, 2003, 22:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
AFAIK, what GWB did - demanding a regime change - is illegal. That is, it violates international law. If you support this, you don't have a defensible position in accusing Iraq.

With a defense budget astrominically beyond that of any nation, the US is above international law. We can't trust anyone to protect our interests - nor do we want the French in charge of ANYTHING

Drake Tungsten · March 17, 2003, 22:08

Quote:

I really wonder about all these people that say even if Saddam leaves, we'll invade. Are these posters really serious?

It's really sad, isn't it?

MichaeltheGreat · March 17, 2003, 22:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
I'm not sure we would... If Saddam and his sons leave, and a new government takes over that his not just his cronies... Bush could look brilliant by saying... IT WORKED. And then make fun of the rest of the world saying their approach didn't work, and his did... without firing a shot.

That would be a bit problematic. First thing, it becomes very hard to define "not his cronies" since there's no real political organization in Iraq that isn't just a rubber stamp for Saddam's rule.

Even if one pretended to show up, there's all sorts of wiggle room about calling for an end to sanctions, rolling of eyes and shuffling of feet, talking about disarmament and putting up memorials to Bush, and then as soon as the US goes home, either that "government" changes it's mind, or else an IRG-Baathist led coup establishes a new thugocracy.

The US would have a real problem if Saddam actually steps aside, because their wouldn't be much choice about either going in anyway, or maintaining troops in the field for months and watching.

Richelieu · March 17, 2003, 22:12

So no one is going to comment about the "don't burn your oilfields" bit ?

Urban Ranger · March 17, 2003, 22:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Caesar the Great
With a defense budget astrominically beyond that of any nation, the US is above international law. We can't trust anyone to protect our interests - nor do we want the French in charge of ANYTHING

You can't have it both ways. Either you hold that every nation must abide the international law, or you hold that national interests are above international law. If you hold the former, you will be compelled to condemn Duyba for violating international law. If you hold the latter, where is your ground in accusing Saddam Hussein of developing CBN weapons?

Caesar the Great · March 17, 2003, 22:12

Even if Saddam steps aside we probably will just claim its a hoax and go in anyway and install a pro-US government (which always turn out great for everyone!)

The whole situation is a mess, at this point it would be too expensive not to go to war.

MichaeltheGreat · March 17, 2003, 22:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I really wonder about all these people that say even if Saddam leaves, we'll invade. Are these posters really serious?

Yes, I am.

Think about it - Saddam pulls off a sham and leaves, the US leaves (after a months long buildup that has cost billions) and the new regime starts playing games, insisting that it shouldn't pay reparations to Kuwait, that food for oil should be expanded, or sanctions ended since it's a sunny new day in Baghdad.

The room for a new regime to scam everybody is great - or else the US can just sit there for more months, getting into the summer season when the weather will play hell with our troops' combat effectiveness.

Besides, who the hell would constitute a new government?

Lincoln · March 17, 2003, 22:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I really wonder about all these people that say even if Saddam leaves, we'll invade. Are these posters really serious?

As much as I respect the views of some here from the left wing I am afraid that they are presently obsessed in their hatred for Bush. They will get over it when the people of Iraq are free and the sanctions are lifted and they have hope. The left is supposed to be motivated by compassion and I respect that. But this diversion into irrational hatred toward one man leads to the insane conclusions posted here.

Ming · March 17, 2003, 22:16

I don't think the US would leave until AFTER the government proved it wasn't a Sadam Sham...

Because you are right MtG... it cost a bundle to put the troops in place. They aren't leaving until Bush is sure that Sadam is truely gone.

KrazyHorse · March 17, 2003, 22:17

Powell has said the US was invading no matter what. Why is this unbelievable?

The only difference is that with Saddam gone the invasion would be unopposed; what he called "the peaceful application of force" (I'm paraphrasing, since I do not recall the exact words).

Drake Tungsten · March 17, 2003, 22:17

Well said, Lincoln. You've expressed my feelings on the matter very well...

Caesar the Great · March 17, 2003, 22:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

You can't have it both ways. Either you hold that every nation must abide the international law, or you hold that national interests are above international law. If you hold the former, you will be compelled to condemn Duyba for violating international law. If you hold the latter, where is your ground in accusing Saddam Hussein of developing CBN weapons?

When you have an army/airforce/navy powerful enough to conquer the world and a nuclear arsenal powerful enough to destroy the world several times over, you can have it both ways.

Its like that disarmament thing which was the beginning of the end of the League of Nations..... its a great idea, you can get rid of as many weapons as you want, but we won't.

Theres no way the US could be objectively judged in any international court, too much anti-US sentiment across the world. Anyway, why should ghana or sri lanka play any significant part in shaping US policy.

SpencerH · March 17, 2003, 22:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

You can't have it both ways. Either you hold that every nation must abide the international law, or you hold that national interests are above international law. If you hold the former, you will be compelled to condemn Duyba for violating international law. If you hold the latter, where is your ground in accusing Saddam Hussein of developing CBN weapons?

Who needs it both ways. "International law" is an oxymoron. Its not a matter of his developing the weapons, its a question of whether he's a threat to us now or will become one. If you accept that he is a threat, then we should strike now before he can hit us first.

Felch · March 17, 2003, 22:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
You can't have it both ways.

That's funny becayse we do have it both ways. We say what we please, and nobody can do anything to stop us.

Watch as we defy world opinion and invade a country that isn't an immediate threat to us. Then watch and see who has the cajones to do anything about it. Face it, China, Russia, France, they're all has-beens. American dominance isn't permanant, but we don't care. We'll have our fun while it lasts.

Inverse Icarus · March 17, 2003, 22:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
AFAIK, what GWB did - demanding a regime change - is illegal. That is, it violates international law. If you support this, you don't have a defensible position in accusing Iraq.

nuh hunh. the UN has rules / proceedures to go about forcibly removing dictators that jepordize the lives of their own people or the international community.

face it. the UN has had it's time and place, and now it's time to destroy him. I honestly can't see howanyone can support saddam.

i can see how people can oppose war in general. and if you want to believe that, good, have fun in your little fairytale world where no one does anything to harm anyone else for any reason, flowers never wilt, and everyone sings every night as one world.

monkspider · March 17, 2003, 22:22

Immerz- I am certain that Bush would eventually invade sometime down the line, possibly in a few months. Likely for reasons of so-called "Al Queda infiltration" or something equally Orwellian. Sadaam calling Bush's bluff would only delay things by a few months at most. Laws of geopolitical inertia combined with Bush's expansionist policies could not stop war even if Sadaam folded and the new Iraqi leader outlawed all weapons of any sort and made love and happiness the law of the land. Bush has unleashed a hurricane that perhaps only God himself could stop.

MichaeltheGreat · March 17, 2003, 22:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Lincoln

As much as I respect the views of some here from the left wing I am afraid that they are presently obsessed in their hatred for Bush. They will get over it when the people of Iraq are free and the sanctions are lifted and they have hope. The left is supposed to be motivated by compassion and I respect that. But this diversion into irrational hatred toward one man leads to the insane conclusions posted here.

Who are the people of Iraq? Do you honestly think we are going to give Shiites complete freedom of speech, religious association, and majority political control? (since they're a majority of the population, and "secular" only because Saddam has purged most Shiite religious elements).

How about the Kurds? How much autonomy will they be given? Any more than the tightly constrained box they're allowed now under the nexus of the NNFZ? "The people of Iraq" is a rather more complex regional sociopolitical issue than most would like to believe, especially in a pseudo-country that has existed even in name for less than a century and which has never had any semblance of democratic rule.

It's got a lot less to do with hatred of Bush, than appreciation of the enormously convoluted power politics of the region, and our historical lack of sophistication in dealing with it.

notyoueither · March 17, 2003, 22:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger
Powell has said the US was invading no matter what. Why is this unbelievable?

The only difference is that with Saddam gone the invasion would be unopposed; what he called "the peaceful application of force" (I'm paraphrasing, since I do not recall the exact words).

Iraq without Saddam, and no occupation either, could get real messy, real fast.

If Saddam leaves, the Yanks will most likely give the Iraqi army 24 hours to prepare to hand over bases and disarm.

raghar · March 17, 2003, 22:24

It's interesting Bush said 48 hours. Australien goverment said Iraqui diplomats should be kicked out till sunday. They should talk with each other, really.

And Bush would come for his 100 billion $ shortly.

http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswi...rtr909628.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/2859225.stm

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...7-055105-3439r

Sava · March 17, 2003, 22:26

DL

do the DL party!

SpencerH · March 17, 2003, 22:27

Look at the problem we face with North Korea i.e. a tin-pot dictator with nukes. Do we really need any more such situations in the world? Whats next, should we sit back and allow an ******* like Mugabe to build what he wants while the French veto any attempts to stop him.

Nubclear · March 17, 2003, 22:28

America has become the Nazi-Germany for the modern era......

Therefore as of today, all my american flags have been properly dealt with

Lincoln · March 17, 2003, 22:28

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Who are the people of Iraq?

The people who live in Iraq.

And I hope we don't give them anything. The oppressive sanctions will be lifted though, no doubt, and they will have a new chance to screw up their country again if they like. I say, a change can be as good as a rest. Let's see what happens next.

Felch · March 17, 2003, 22:29

Sava, I'm pretty sure raghar is legit.

Inverse Icarus · March 17, 2003, 22:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000

America has become the Nazi-Germany for the modern era......

Therefore as of today, all my american flags have been properly dealt with

alright, just go back to russia and shut up now. if you really love russia so much, and hate america with enough passion to compare it to a tolitarian regime bent on genocide, we don't really want you here. thank you.

KrazyHorse · March 17, 2003, 22:29

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither

Iraq without Saddam, and no occupation either, could get real messy, real fast.

If Saddam leaves, the Yanks will most likely give the Iraqi army 24 hours to prepare to hand over bases and disarm.

I'm not arguing about the necessity of this; I just find it fairly strange that several people here think that the US would pack up and leave if Saddam exiled himself, when their own Secretary of State has said the exact opposite.