Bush Speech Thread

[Zero]

How can people not support the war and at the same time support the troops?

[Alex]

Originally posted by Sava
Funny how those facts are omitted from the American news media reports.

*Alex points to his sig*

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Calc II
How can people not support the war and at the same time support the troops?

I support our troops. I dont want them to die. I dont want them to be tortured or hurt in any way, physically or emotionally. I believe they are good people who just want to do the right thing (most of them anyway).

But I dont support what they are being ordered to do. Its just that simple.

[ThePlagueRat]

The scary part begins when people are applauding to the revenge, as they did on one NY movie theatre just after the 11/9 attacks:

During the slaughtering scene in 'Rules of engagment' many frightened and terrorized New Yorkers was cheering and applauding to the fictionized U.S troop detachment's shooting at the demonstating mob, and it was before the clues of in-mob snipers had been presented. This is what terror do to many people, and we have seen the same in extreme form down in Palestine. It can happen to nicest of us, and it's our sorrow and hatred at it's worst! So why don't you try to fight that!?

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Calc II
How can people not support the war and at the same time support the troops?

it's basically like saying "i don't think what they're doing is right, but i hope they don't die doing it"

[GePap]

The speech was the same bunch of recycled made for TV one liners that almost all his speeches are made of. There were only two thing new in it: the continued tantrum against the French because of our failure to convince 6 small states to back us, and the whole bit about asking the Iraqi military to give up, and how we would go about helping them do that.

And as I said in now cancelled threads, no words about the aftermath, besides the usual "liberation bit".

Cliche stuff.

[Evil_Eric_4]

S!All

Havent posted for a long time but feel I must post now in these most "interesting times".

I back Bush and our military 100% in this quagmire.
This is not "unilateral" nor is it "pre-emptive".This is simply the continuation of hostilities due to the losing side disobeying the cease-fire agreements.This action has been brewing for 12 years and had it not been for the "pro economy at all costs" policy of our last administration for 8 LONG years our current president wouldnt be dealing with these incredibly impossible decisions right now.If we(and I mean the world) would have stood united on this issue then I doubt we would be in the situation we are now.The French,Russians,and Chinese have given Saddam false hope that the U.N. would protect him.
He played you all like a fiddle but he underestimated our (the U.S.)resolve.The French et.al knew we wouldnt back off this yet they continued to give him false hope.
If we had all stood united war COULD have been avoided but knowing Saddam's nature I kind of doubt it.
Oh,well--Now it is done,The French who wanted nothing more than to solidify the EU into an economic and political counterweight to the U.S. has only fractured that hope into a million pieces.Nearly half of Europe (the Eastern bloc) lived under oppression and tyrany for 50 years and will never side with a state that does not intend to promote freedom to any country outside Europe.
This War will be over in a matter of days and a new age will begin in the ME.One of tolerence and acceptance consistant with the new world order free of religious dogma and persecution.
Islamic nations must understand that we are not impressing our religious beliefs upon them but rather our civic concience.
I truly believe that Iraq could have been a shining example to other nations in the ME had it not been for a meglamaniac being in charge.they are highly sopisticated and advanced for a muslem country due mainly to the fact that they are secular.This really makes Iraq the perfect candidate for the great experiment.That is a secular democratic country in the ME.With their natural resources Im sure they will become the model for all middle eastern democracies to come.Its the natural evolution of govt.--Dictatorship to monarchy-to parlimentary monarchy-to representative republic.Those in the ME are behind the curve but we CAN speed up the process.

Well ive been rambling for a while now so Ill leave you all with this--Had GWB not put this all on the line then we'd be facing the same old standards that we've been facing for 30 years i.e. a ME that truly hates us and would eventually bring armegeden sooner or later.
A first step is infinately better than no steps at all.We can not allow our children or Grand-children to deal with constant fear when we have the power to do something now.

S!

[Ellestar]

One question: do you american citizens truly believe that USA needs something other than Iraq OIL???
There are so many dictators in the world, but bush choose one with oil...

Btw do you know Libya (country west of Egypt)? There are also dictator regime and this country also has OIL. America attacked this country, but Libya has Russian SAM sites, and they wiped the floor with USA aviation. American soldiers bravely fly away like chickens to their 2 Aircraft Carriers, refused to fight, and 2 Aircraft carriers turned around and go back, to USA.

But noone hears that USA tried to set loyal regime in central / south Africa (huge number of dictators). Well, mb they don't need bananas really much

[Imran Siddiqui]

Of course the fact Iraq is the country that invaded another country 12 years ago and since then has failed to live up to cease fire terms while keeping chemical weapons totally escapes your mind.

I say it again, those who think this war is about oil are smoking something.

(btw: we kicked the crap out of Libya in 1983, and almost killed Quaddafi)

But noone hears that USA tried to set loyal regime in central / south Africa (huge number of dictators). Well, mb they don't need bananas really much

Obviously you've never noticed that huge mass below the United States, known as Latin America. The amount of 'loyal regimes' we've placed there (even after the Cold War... hmmm... I just realized that Panama is very similar to this war) is a pretty big number (which might also be due to the fact that it is easier for us to reach that area... as it is easier to reach Iraq than Central Africa)

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Ellestar
America attacked this country, but Libya has Russian SAM sites, and they wiped the floor with USA aviation. American soldiers bravely fly away like chickens to their 2 Aircraft Carriers, refused to fight, and 2 Aircraft carriers turned around and go back, to USA.

What are you talking about? The truth is s that we delivered 2 bombs into Khadafi's bedrooms, and he has been quiet since then.

Iraqis had even more your Russian made SAMs back in 1991, we mopped floor with them.

And T72s, supposedly advanced Russian MBTs, were blewn to pieces like target practices. We didn't lose a single M1.

Finally, you guys struggled so badly and are still struggling against the pathetic Chechens. You need to check your own past military records before bragging about how "great" Russia's military is.

[java4me]

When would the 48 hours officially be up?

Did the countdown start at the end of Bush's speech or was it earlier today?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ellestar
One question: do you american citizens truly believe that USA needs something other than Iraq OIL???
There are so many dictators in the world, but bush choose one with oil...

Btw do you know Libya (country west of Egypt)? There are also dictator regime and this country also has OIL. America attacked this country, but Libya has Russian SAM sites, and they wiped the floor with USA aviation. American soldiers bravely fly away like chickens to their 2 Aircraft Carriers, refused to fight, and 2 Aircraft carriers turned around and go back, to USA.

But noone hears that USA tried to set loyal regime in central / south Africa (huge number of dictators). Well, mb they don't need bananas really much

Yeah, I know you're either lying or totally ignorant of the truth. The ONLY US aircraft lost was an FB-111A that was bombing Qaddafi's compound at low altitude, and caught blast damage from it's own dropped ordnance.

The Libyan SAM's at the time (most of the planet has ex-Soviet SAMs, and against modern aircraft, only the SA-10 is even vaguely worth a ****, and it isn't widely exported) were SA-2 and SA-3 crap. Libya pretty much got the bottom of the barrel of Soviet export production.

In the air, the Libyans were shut out, with several of their aircraft shot down, to no US losses, despite Rules of Engagement that required the US to not fire unless the Libyans initiated hostile action.

US aviators never refused to fly combat sorties over Libya (it's not much more hazardous than a training exercise, the Libyans are the least competent in air defense in the entire mideast, and their pilots only fly in daylight hours.

After we thumped Qaddafi and his planes stopped trying to play with us, and he gave up on that "line of death" joke, our aircraft carriers left because they'd done their jobs and kicked Qaddafi's sorry little ass back in line. Guess what? The world hasn't heard much from the little moron since then, has it?

[Ted Striker]

The Libyans remind me of that movie Iron Eagle.

Bad Arab accent:

"Now you will deal with me, Colonel Nazim el-al Nagesh"

Puberty voice:

"Now you will deal with ME, Doug Masters."

[Lord Merciless]

More about the "prowess" of Soviet military hardware:

In the 1982 war between Syria and Israel, Israel destroyed 86 Syrian MIGs, while only losing one F-16.

[Ted Striker]

I believe the 1982 war was the one when Israel introduced drones and pretty much fooled Syria's SAM's. There was some place in Syria called, "death valley," and it was lined up with so many anti-aircraft missles it was feared that the Israelis couldn't get through it. But they used drones which sent out radar signatures and caused the SAM's to lock on.

Somebody correct my fuzzy details.

[Ned]

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.

Like Roosevelt violated international law when he made Germany's surrender unconditionally.

Get real, UR. The problem we have today is caused by exactly this kind of muddled thinking. We left Saddam in power in '91. That was the mistake.

[Ned]

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).

This makes sense. Essentially Saddam leaves and the new government surrenders. We end up in charge without firing a shot. Iraq is diarmed and the Iraqi people are freed.

[Ned]

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

It is really sad to see someone who believes their own propaganda.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava
Then hate the Republicans, not Americans... there's a difference between supporting the war and supporting the troops overseas. I'm probably the biggest Bush-hater around, but I've also got two buddies in the Marines. I'll fly my American flag high, despite the fact some dumbass president is tarnishing it.

Sava, when Clinton was doing his thing in Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo, I supported Clinton. I did not pull some Democrat chickenshit, "I support the troops." The Democrats have been doing this sort of crap since the Gulf War. It is crass and unworthy to be called patriotism.

[Dis]

at least Ming could have gave this thread a better title. I was playing BG2 at the time. I'm too far behind on this threat to post on it. Pretty funny stuff about Libya up above though.

[Dis]

and who is Ellestar?

I become suspicious of settlers posting in off-topic.

P.S. who do you think will win the war?

[Kramerman]

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.

Originally posted by Ned


Like Roosevelt violated international law when he made Germany's surrender unconditional.

Get real, UR. The problem we have today is caused by exactly this kind of muddled thinking. We left Saddam in power in '91. That was the mistake.

really International law is a joke, and everyone knows it. People just use it to their adavntage and their advasaries disadvantage (ie the UN). The only real law in the current world society of nation states is the law of the jungle, unfortunately.

We kicked Saddam's ass in '91, he agreed to certain conditions. Hes failed those agreences, and instead of kicking his ass immediately, like we should have, we have given him several years. The bastard's time is now (finally) up

Kman

[KrazyHorse]

The world hasn't heard much from the little moron since then, has it?

Lockerbie.

[Lincoln]

quote:

"I've stated numerous times I love this country."

Right. And so does Saddam. Who do you double minded people think you are kidding. You will be dancing in the streets if we lose this war. You are in love with your own hatred for everything American.

[ThePlagueRat]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

After we thumped Qaddafi and his planes stopped trying to play with us, and he gave up on that "line of death" joke, our aircraft carriers left because they'd done their jobs and kicked Qaddafi's sorry little ass back in line. Guess what? The world hasn't heard much from the little moron since then, has it?

Oh no, wrong... He is in charge now. It's just your press that didn't bother to tell you. I will tell you a little secret...

Moammar Gaddaffi officially supported the US-in their war against terrorism, and he also paid compensation to terror-victims families. Libya was put under UN sanctions for almost a decade, and Gaddaffi probably realized that he had to negotiate.
Most UN countries accepted his compensation and lifted blocade, but US did not. They demanded an official confession of guilt in the terrorist acts. Well, nothing was really proved.

Nowadays Gaddaffi is funding his oil-money to African countries,
and the businessmen there in an effort to build a EU-style african union. He has another agenda these days.

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I say it again, those who think this war is about oil are smoking something.

Of course as someone once noted, if Iraq's chief's export to the world was kumquats instead of oil, we wouldn't be in this situation today.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ned
Sava, when Clinton was doing his thing in Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo, I supported Clinton. I did not pull some Democrat chickenshit, "I support the troops." The Democrats have been doing this sort of crap since the Gulf War. It is crass and unworthy to be called patriotism.

I didn't support any of the military action in those places. Patriotism is supporting the ideals of freedom and democracy, and effectively wishing the best for our troops and cheering for them. Theodore Roosevelt said something... I'll paraphrase:
[It is not unpatriotic to go against the president if he does not follow the will of the people or the ideals and spirit of the constitution.]

So Ned, with all due respect, I'll listen to Teddy instead of you

[Sava]

Originally posted by UberKruX


it's basically like saying "i don't think what they're doing is right, but i hope they don't die doing it"

and cheering when they return safely from foreign battlefields...

Tass: you quoted stuff from other people in your response to me

You know what's just as bad as calling Americans, Nazis? It's the stupid assertions that people against the war are unpatriotic and want to see heavy casualties just to gloat. I can't think of anything more despicable than suggesting that people who support peaceful solutions really want to see massive death and destruction. Such assertions have lost all rational, logical arguments and are just flaming.

I hope this war goes quick, and ends with minimal casualties. Actually, I hope there are only 3 casualties. Saddam and his dumbass sons. Hope springs' eternal I suppose

[gunkulator]

"Actually, I hope there are only 3 casualties. Saddam and his dumbass sons."

If the Iraqi leadership has any brains, they'd offer the three of them up on a silver platter on day one. The only person more stubborn than Bush in this whole fiasco is Saddam. He could be enjoying his millions on a Libyan beach in peaceful reitrement and no one would give a flying fig.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by gunkulator
If the Iraqi leadership has any brains, they'd offer the three of them up on a silver platter on day one. The only person more stubborn than Bush in this whole fiasco is Saddam. He could be enjoying his millions on a Libyan beach in peaceful reitrement and no one would give a flying fig.

saddam's an egoist, he just wants to be remembered. which makes this whole fiasco that much more dangerous.