Bush's Sunday Night Speech

[Mason]

Bush cracks me up. He called the UN the upholder of peace and compassion in the world. Is that like when he called them "irrelevant?"

He again tries to tie Iraq to 9-11. He continually intertwines the Iraqi invasion and "terrorists." Not only is this intellectually dishonest, it continues to demonstrate that our reasons for invading Iraq were never clear in the first place. Why has he not once mentioned any capture of WMD? Wasn't this whole war about getting rid of Saddam's WMDs? Well, where are they?

It's a shame that he won't be honest with the people. Intead, he talks about freedom and killers and always paints things in the Us v. Them, Good v. Evil argument. As long as we take such a simplistic view of the world, we'll never truly deal with the real issues at hand.

Now he needs another $87 billion dollars for Iraq - pushing next year's budget deficit estimate at $550 billion (isn't that about right?).

He's also one of the worst readers I have ever seen. Can. He. Pause. Any. More. Often?

[Dont Hurt Me]

the U.N is supposed to be but has failed, failed & failed, why they didnt just get saddam and his henchmen with a squad of seals or some good inteligence and a missle instead of the us army is beyond me. now we have to pay for this crap while every day our borders are wide open. IS anyone home??good thing for george the demo's dont have a decent candidate.

[Mason]

"I recognize that not all of our friends agreed with our decision to ... remove Saddam Hussein from power. Yet we cannot let past differences interfere with present duties," Bush said.

In other words, "Sorry I told all of you to piss off earlier, but we'd really like some money - and can you donate some troops to be cannon fodder so some of our boys stop dying?"

[Code101]

I loved it! I think he is a wonderful President. I herd all I need to hear to keep me supporting the cause of the war on terror. This country is much more safe with him.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Code101
I loved it! I think he is a wonderful President. I herd all I need to hear to keep me supporting the cause of the war on terror. This country is much more safe with him.

don't be surprised if your unapologetic jingoism and Stepford-like blind trust gets you roundly dismissed, then.

[Code101]

Originally posted by zimv20
don't be surprised if your unapologetic jingoism and Stepford-like blind trust gets you roundly dismissed, then.

What's that suppose to mean? people on here can say how bad he is but the rest of us who like him can't say how good he is? That's kind of unfair.

[zimv20]

i've read the speech (missed the broadcast). here are my impressions:

1. it's well written
2. it does a good job of appealing to the noble goal of mideast peace
3. it does a good job of pandering fear if that goal is not met
4. it does a good job of equating fighting in iraq w/ fighting terrorism
5. it emphasizes victories
6. it downplays the extent of the resistance
7. it keeps putting the word "terrorist" in people's minds, even when talking about guerrillas
8. it uses its self-defined victories in iraq to bolster, by association, "successes" in afghanistan
9. it places any blame of past disagreements w/ UN security council countries on their shoulders
10. it associates successes in iraq w/ preventing future 9/11s (even though iraq had nothing to do w/ it)

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Code101
What's that suppose to mean? people on here can say how bad he is but the rest of us who like him can't say how good he is? That's kind of unfair.

you can say whatever you'd like. the people who are respected here make intelligent, fact-supported statements and/or reasoned judgements and predictions.

your statement makes me wonder if you're paying a little too much attention to britney spears.

[wwworry]

Originally posted by Code101
I loved it! I think he is a wonderful President. I herd all I need to hear to keep me supporting the cause of the war on terror. This country is much more safe with him.

Safe, HA!
THere are more terrorists in Iraq now than when this whole thing started, more Americans being killed, less stability, fewer jobs for Americans, more debt, much much more fear (which he needs to get re-elected), more money for his croney friends etc. etc.

Anthrax, the blackout, 9/11 all happened on his watch - so how are we safer?

[Code101]

Originally posted by zimv20
The people who are respected here make intelligent, fact-supported statements and/or reasoned judgements


I would agree with you on the above statement. I would also add that I also "make intelligent, fact-supported statements and/or reasoned judgements." I do know a thing or two about this stuff. I just happen to be a Republican Strategist so of course you will disagree with me what ever the fact.

It's your opinion vs mine. You think you are right and I think I'm right. That doesn't make ether one of us more right to any one else. You have your own opinion. I have mine. Who died and made you more right than me?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Code101
I would also add that I also "make intelligent, fact-supported statements and/or reasoned judgements."

i guess i haven't seen them. your rah-rah go bush statement -- do you believe that qualifies?

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Code101
I just happen to be a Republican Strategist so of course you will disagree with me what ever the fact.


That explains the cheerleading. Perhaps you could go over your reasoned argument one more time.

It seemed to me that Bush's move to try and get UN support and financial aid is backing away from his former disdain of that institution and allies who did not go along. How does this vindicate his policy? If Bush must now get UN authorization and help because there is an ongoing insurgency in Iraq, doesn't that call into question many of the assumptions we were told to begin with? I'm all for going to the UN, but the situation in Iraq sure doesn't make me feel safer - all cheerleading aside.

[chadfromdallas]

Originally posted by wwworry

Anthrax, the blackout, 9/11 all happened on his watch - so how are we safer?

And how exactly could he have prevented these things?

[mcrain]

Originally posted by chadfromdallas
And how exactly could he have prevented these things?

Maybe he could have, but assuming that it would have been impossible to prevent, he could have done more to directly respond to 9/11 (i.e. continue the war on terror instead of half ***ing a war in Afganistan so that he could start a war for oil/middle east so-called stability); anthrax (what happened to that investigation), and throughout the entire thing, done more to avoid the world's disdain for the U.S.

I missed the majority of the speech, but I knew what he was going to say before the speech. He has no choice but to try to make it look like we're doing the right thing, that we did the right thing when we started the war, and that things aren't as bad as people think.

I think the facts coming out regarding our motivation for going to war, and the facts that are coming out of that part of the world, don't really support his statements.

I'd love to hear more from the republican strategist. Actually, I'd like to know what the "facts" are (as seen by a republican strategist), and then discuss the spin of those facts.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by mcrain

I'd love to hear more from the republican strategist. Actually, I'd like to know what the "facts" are (as seen by a republican strategist), and then discuss the spin of those facts.

maybe the strategy is to join discussion groups and cheerlead.

phew! i _almost_ fell for it!

[Code101]

Originally posted by chadfromdallas
And how exactly could he have prevented these things?

My Sentiments Exactly!

If Gore or Dean was in there, we could have had a nuke or other type of attack by now. It's funny how Democrats work. The lights go out, "it's Bushes fault." An earthquake happens, "It's Bushes fault." Let's not forget that on Clintons watch, he missed 3 different occasions to get Bin Ladin like in Sudan. When US intelegence knew where Bil Ladin was Clinton was no where to be found, they couldn't contact him for hours. The order was given to attack too late. Bin Ladin slipped away. Don't blame 9/11 on Bush. Don't blame the Economy on bush ether. We were in a bad Recession before Clinton left office. If i'm not mistaken, it's almost back up to what it was.

Clinton lost the codes for missile deployment on more than one occasion. Just read about it from the General who guarded the Briefcase at the time. It's called Dereliction of Duty by Robert Patterson.

There was nothing new in President Bushes talk. I don't need any more convincing to see this is the right thing we are doing. I was convinced on 9/11 The President just reaffirmed it for me and many others tonight. He did a good job.

You ask with sarcasm, do I really feel safer with Bush? My reply is, yes, yes and definitely!!!

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by zimv20
maybe the strategy is to join discussion groups and cheerlead.

phew! i _almost_ fell for it!

I don't know about you, but he makes me feel better about the Democrats chances next year.

[chadfromdallas]

Originally posted by Sayhey
I don't know about you, but he makes me feel better about the Democrats chances next year.


Yea, that black preacher is going to go a long way ;)

[Code101]

Originally posted by chadfromdallas
Yea, that black preacher is going to go a long way ;)

No kidding:D

All 9 of them are a laughing stock. They should all run for a position with the UN or something.

[zimv20]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/08/opinion/08MON1.html?pagewanted=print&position=

September 8, 2003

The President's Speech

President Bush urged the American people to stay the course in Iraq last night. We wish he had announced a course correction.

It was impossible to watch Mr. Bush's somber speech without remembering that four months ago, when the president made his "Top Gun" landing on an aircraft carrier and declared an end to "major combat operations," the White House was worried about giving the world the impression that Americans were gloating.

Now, Washington has been compelled to recognize that it cannot succeed in securing Iraq alone and badly needs much more United Nations help. Yet the administration still resists paying the necessary price of accepting broad U.N. authority over rebuilding Iraq's institutions and economy. Telling members of the U.N. that they have a "responsibility" to step up to the plate may seem a little presumptuous given the way Mr. Bush ignored their earlier concerns at the time of the invasion. The United States needs to negotiate realistically with France, Germany and Russia on expanding the peacekeeping forces and getting financial help with the huge reconstruction costs.

Given the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been uncovered in Iraq, the president needs to be much more up-front with the American people about why our troops are there. Polls show most Americans still believe that Iraq was behind the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, although there is no evidence connecting Saddam Hussein to the terror plot. That is in part because the president continues to draw a line between Sept. 11 and Iraq. There are still good reasons to maintain America's commitment in Iraq. But Mr. Bush's tendency to refer to everyone from Baath Party loyalists to guerrilla fighters as terrorists seems designed to confuse the public rather than clarify the administration's goals.

While Mr. Bush finally set a price tag on the upcoming cost of the Iraq effort, he still has not done nearly enough to level with the American people. The bulk of the $87 billion the president said he would request from Congress goes to the military and intelligence. The amount that would be left for things like restoring water and electricity seems very low, given recent information on the pathetic state of the country's infrastructure.

Mr. Bush's earlier attempts to evade setting a price tag on the Iraq effort were in part aimed at greasing the skids for the administration's tax cut program. Certainly now it is time to give up on the idea that the tax cuts temporarily approved during the president's tenure can remain in place. But while Mr. Bush is getting more specific about the numbers, he has yet to really tell Americans that they will have to make sacrifices to pay the bill.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Code101
No kidding:D

All 9 of them are a laughing stock. They should all run for a position with the UN or something.

Every time there is an election the opposition's candidates are not given much chance until it becomes clear who the nominee will be. I don't have a crystal ball to tell you who will win the nomination, but whoever it is will have a good chance against Bush if the economy doesn't get a lot better and the situation in Iraq isn't much, much better. That is what the polls are saying now. But I don't have to tell you that - you're a paid strategist and know it already.

By the way, I assume the you are talking about Al Sharpton when you make reference to "the Black Preacher." He has a name.

[chadfromdallas]

Originally posted by Sayhey

By the way, I assume the you are talking about Al Sharpton when you make reference to "the Black Preacher." He has a name.

Could care less what his name is, hate the guy. He is a racist in my eyes.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by chadfromdallas
Could care less what his name is, hate the guy. He is a racist in my eyes.

please tone down the inflammatory remarks.

[chadfromdallas]

Originally posted by zimv20
please tone down the inflammatory remarks.



:confused:

[Code101]

Bed time guys:(

I'll check in here tomorrow.

[professor]

Originally posted by Mason
"I recognize that not all of our friends agreed with our decision to ... remove Saddam Hussein from power. Yet we cannot let past differences interfere with present duties," Bush said.
[...]

As a German I would deeply regret being included in the list of Bush's "friends". Many of us may be friends of the original idea of freedom and democracy, but the contorted and mutilated Bush version of freedom and democracy is not what we want to be associated with.
So let's wait until the U.S. returns to its original line of goals (plus a few necessary amendments regarding international cooperation and the environment), and we can all be friends again.

[Sayhey]

The Times quote places the situation in perspective when it says:

Now, Washington has been compelled to recognize that it cannot succeed in securing Iraq alone and badly needs much more United Nations help. Yet the administration still resists paying the necessary price of accepting broad U.N. authority over rebuilding Iraq's institutions and economy. Telling members of the U.N. that they have a "responsibility" to step up to the plate may seem a little presumptuous given the way Mr. Bush ignored their earlier concerns at the time of the invasion. The United States needs to negotiate realistically with France, Germany and Russia on expanding the peacekeeping forces and getting financial help with the huge reconstruction costs.

We shall see in the next few weeks if the Administration is willing to pay the "price" to get the support that is needed to handle the situation or its hubris gets in the way. It looks as if the French are willing to forgo the gloating and negotiate a resolution if Bush is willing to turn over the political framework to the UN.

Chadfromdallas, it is clear that if you don't even care to use or know Sharpton's name then your insight to his "racism" must be invaluable.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by professor
As a German I would deeply regret being included in the list of Bush's "friends".

count yourself lucky. i'm a "constituent." :-)

i'm glad you're posting here again

[Rower_CPU]

Last chance to salvage the thread folks. If this behavior continues it will be closed.

[vwcruisn]

Originally posted by wwworry
Safe, HA!
THere are more terrorists in Iraq now than when this whole thing started, more Americans being killed, less stability, fewer jobs for Americans, more debt, much much more fear (which he needs to get re-elected), more money for his croney friends etc. etc.

Anthrax, the blackout, 9/11 all happened on his watch - so how are we safer?

And don't forget the whole power "crisis" B.S. we experienced here in california thanks to el paso natural gas/enron/bush/cheeny etc etc etc.... isnt it amazing how it was all put on gray davis' shoulders to make HIM look at fault.. while bush and his cronies come out smelling like a rose... is he just that good.. or is the general public really that dumb?

[zimv20]

so who was the intended audience for the speech? was it effective for that audience?

possible audiences:
1. american public
2. congress
3. gov'ts of UN countries
4. iraqis

anyone else?

[wwworry]

Originally posted by Code101
If Gore or Dean was in there, we could have had a nuke or other type of attack by now. It's funny how Democrats work.

What's funny is that republicans ignore the ACTUAL record of the president and brag about how much better Bush is than a hypothetical president and how much better his record is than a hyopothetical record. (then they go on about Clinton, completely ignoring Nixon!)

Yes, we have not been invaded by Martians. Hoorah, for Bush. But, by the same token, we probably will be attacked again and more often because Bush is president. (you see how that works;))

Yes the ACTUAL record of this president is:
9/11, the anthrax killer not found, Ossama not found, Hussain not found, 2.7 million jobs lost, 1.4 million more in poverty, the biggest budget deficits ever, massive blackouts on the east coast, huge price gouging on the west coast, worldwide resentment of the US, a weak dollar, support for huge media monopoly conglomerates, etc. etc.

Maybe you feel safer because you have a job (republican spin master) that is protected by massive corporate subsidies to the republican party! While the rest of us are getting laid off, corporations are paying millions to convince us how lucky we are.

[Pinto]

For the good of the world the UN should do whatever it can to discredit "Mad Dog" Bush and get him unelected.

The UN should not be helping any country that is so war-like and who is dropping out of nuclear arms treaties and developing new weapons, as the United States is.

[peterjhill]

Originally posted by Code101 I herd all I need to hear to keep me supporting the cause of the war on terror. This country is much more safe with him

Do you herd cows also? That is what Bush's controllers are good at, herding those who believe everything they hear on TV.

Originally posted by Code101
I just happen to be a Republican Strategist so of course you will disagree with me what ever the fact.

Thank god for Bush and too bad for the Democrats that you are not a speech writer.

It's your opinion vs mine. You think you are right and I think I'm right. That doesn't make ether one of us more right to any one else. You have your own opinion. I have mine. Who died and made you more right than me?

I don't think it is about right and wrong. Bush probably does, though. Unlike him, I believe that you are entitled to your opinion. My opinion coincides with Zim's though, I thought the remarks were a bit Jingoistic. Whatever though, In January of 05, hopefully it will be a free country again.

[mactastic]

Saw a great cartoon in the op/ed section of my paper yesterday... Bush standing on the steps of the UN holding a sign saying "Will grovel for troops". Too funny. Well, if only it wern't true.

[Code101]

Originally posted by Pinto
For the good of the world the UN should do whatever it can to discredit "Mad Dog" Bush and get him unelected.


That won't happen! We don't answer to the UN like the Europeans and the rest of the world. Time for the US to tell the UN to get out of NY.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by Code101
That won't happen! We don't answer to the UN like the Europeans and the rest of the world. Time for the US to tell the UN to get out of NY.

Then why is Bush asking the UN to step back in in Iraq?

[Code101]

It's simple. Many countries want to help in Iraq. They won't untill they get the UN's blessing because they don't want the French and the UN to go against them. Bush wants the UN to give the OK so these countries can come in and help. Bush wants the UN to basically shape up.

[toontra]

Originally posted by Code101
It's simple. Many countries want to help in Iraq.


Can you tell us exactly which countries are queueing up to donate troops and cash to help the coalition occupiers out of the hole which they have dug for themselves? I'm fascinated to hear!

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Code101
It's simple. Many countries want to help in Iraq. They won't untill they get the UN's blessing because they don't want the French and the UN to go against them. Bush wants the UN to give the OK so these countries can come in and help. Bush wants the UN to basically shape up.

I'm not sure what power the French and the UN have that makes other nations hold back from jumping into Iraq, but I sure would like to hear your explanation of it. Could it be that the French and the UN want international law to be upheld? I'm like toontra, could you tell us where the line is forming of nations eager to help? I just heard this morning that Japan and India both declined to help.

Code 101, you seem to look at this with the most uncritical eye. Perhaps I'm too critical, but the view that everything Bush says is the gospel truth is a little distorted, don't you think?

[Pinto]

Originally posted by Code101
It's simple. Many countries want to help in Iraq. They won't untill they get the UN's blessing because they don't want the French and the UN to go against them. Bush wants the UN to give the OK so these countries can come in and help. Bush wants the UN to basically shape up.

Other countries don't see why they should put their own soldiers at risk at help American on it's way to world domination. Especially as it was an invasion based on lies.

Here's a good article you will no doubt not want to read.

link (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1036687,00.html)

I'm going to post it as a new thread

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Code101
Bush wants the UN to basically shape up.

So he can tell them to get out of NY?

Where are you going with this? On one hand, you say the UN is worthless and we should throw them away, and then on the other you say the president is a mighty fine man for giving them one last chance before we throw them out?

We are not alone in the world and we need to stop acting like we are the only ones who matter.

[chadfromdallas]

Originally posted by pseudobrit

We are not alone in the world and we need to stop acting like we are the only ones who matter.


We don't need to stop acting like anything; other countries need to relize there are problems to take care of so we won't have to take care of them for them.

[mcrain]

Originally posted by Code101
It's simple. Many countries want to help in Iraq. They won't untill they get the UN's blessing because they don't want the French and the UN to go against them. Bush wants the UN to give the OK so these countries can come in and help. Bush wants the UN to basically shape up.

WAIT A SECOND!!! First you say that we don't need the UN and that it should get out of NY, but the rest of the world won't act unless it gets UN blessing?

Do you have any idea how ridiculous it is to say that the UN is unnecessary, yet in practically the same breath, you say that the UN's approval is needed to bail Jr. out of a huge mess he created.

Unbelievable.

I don't mean this as a personal insult, merely I am pointing out the total and complete lack of logic in your two statements.

Then again, you are a strategist for a party/president who supports things like eliminating any mpg restrictions on SUVs, and then advocating drilling in Alaska; who during the 80s and 90s prevented any type of infrastructure improvements in the power delivery system, yet thinks there is no blame to be had; a party who thought that a lie about a bj was sufficient to impeach, but when your guy lies to the world, it's cool b/c he's protecting us from terrorism (although of course, the extremists in the world hate us even more now); OH, AND THE GRAND-DADDY OF THEM ALL-- Jr. advocated a tax cut for everyone (ha, what a joke in and of itself) because we had such huge surplusses that we should be getting our money back, but NOW, the tax cuts are because we don't have surplusses and need to give the money back to the people most unlikely to spend it on anything worthwhile so that the economy will get better. Absolutely amazing logic. (Let's not forget Bush was adamant in his campaign that he wanted to depend on the people not the government, and the first thing he did when he wasn't getting his way in Florida and things were looking bad, was to run to a court full of people appointed by people like his dad).

As for there being no good democrat candidates, this is coming from someone who supports a president who couldn't put a coherent sentence together if his life (ha, actually, not his life, the lives of our soldiers all over the world) depended on it.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Code101
I herd all I need to hear

Ironic "choice" of words... you're definitely in the herd.

to keep me supporting the cause of the war on terror.

'Cause Iraqis were behind so many terrorist attacks on the US?

This country is much more safe with him.

Fear is a wonderful tool.

[chadfromdallas]

Originally posted by pseudobrit

'Cause Iraqis were behind so many terrorist attacks on the US?



How do you know they weren't? You don't.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by chadfromdallas
We don't need to stop acting like anything; other countries need to relize there are problems to take care of so we won't have to take care of them for them.

Be honest, are you and Code101 the same person?

[mcrain]

Originally posted by chadfromdallas
We don't need to relize anything; other countries need to relize there are problems to take care of so we won't have to take care of them for them.

Yeah, there are lots of problems we could address in our own country (if we had the money to do it - rather than spending all of it and more on the military).

One I can think of is our appalling performance in education. I mean, we do terribly in math, science, geography, history, and one other that I can't think of right now... OH, that's right... English/Spelling.

[chadfromdallas]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Be honest, are you and Code101 the same person?


:confused:

[mcrain]

Originally posted by chadfromdallas
How do you know they weren't? You don't.

Actually, if they were behind any terrorist acts, and the CIA, NSA, or anyone else had hard evidence of that fact, I GUARANTEE that Jr. would be on the boob tube the next day waving it around as support for his little war.

The fact that he hasn't done that is pretty good proof that they weren't, or that no one knows if they were.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by chadfromdallas
How do you know they weren't? You don't.

I do. They weren't. Do you know what you're talking about?

It was bankrolled by Saudis and carried out by Saudis and Egyptians.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by chadfromdallas
:confused:

Same lack of logic, knowledge of facts, terrible English and spelling and you only seem to show up in this thread.

I dunno. Perhaps it's that herd mentality blurring the line between one cheerleading person and the next.

[chadfromdallas]

Theres no way they that were involved and no one knows about it? This is absolutely not a possibility at all?

[mcrain]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Do you know what you're talking about?


Clearly that was a rhetorical question. :D :D :D

(Seeing as education has such a low spot in the current administration's priority list, you can look that word up here: http://www.m-w.com/home.htm)

[chadfromdallas]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Same lack of logic, knowledge of facts, terrible English and spelling and you only seem to show up in this thread.

I dunno. Perhaps it's that herd mentality blurring the line between one cheerleading person and the next.


Lack of knownledge....eh no.

Spelling? Who the hell cares, this is a message board, not a writing contest.

Terrible english? again, a message board.


I only seem to show up in this thread? who the hell are you?

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by chadfromdallas
I only seem to show up in this thread? who the hell are you?

Not a newbie.

[mcrain]

Originally posted by chadfromdallas
who the hell are you?

He's Pseudobrit... see that, they put his name by all of his posts!

[chadfromdallas]

Originally posted by mcrain
He's Pseudobrit... see that, they put his name by all of his posts!


;)

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by chadfromdallas
Theres no way they that were involved and no one knows about it? This is absolutely not a possibility at all?

Well, I guess there's a possibility, but it's up there with the odds that the Eagle landed on a soundstage at Warner Bros. in 1969.

[chadfromdallas]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Not a newbie.


Oh god no....I'm new to the message board....how terrible. :rolleyes:

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by chadfromdallas
Spelling? Who the hell cares, this is a message board, not a writing contest.

Terrible english? again, a message board.

I normally don't say anything about such things, but the similarities stood out today.

Lack of knownledge....eh no.

This from someone who thinks Iraq was behind 9/11. :rolleyes:

[chadfromdallas]

Originally posted by pseudobrit

This from someone who thinks Iraq was behind 9/11. :rolleyes:



They could be involved. You do not know more than what the news puts out and neither do I.

[Mason]

Originally posted by chadfromdallas
They could be involved. You do not know more than what the news puts out and neither do I.

Australia could have been behind 9-11, too. But I wouldn't go arguing that without any proof.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by chadfromdallas
They could be involved. You do not know more than what the news puts out and neither do I.

It could be little green men from Mars who took control of those airplanes with their special "techno" beams! It is up to those who believe a premise to prove it! If Bush wants us to believe that Iraq was involved in 9/11 he must show the world the proof!

Edit: Mason, you got there before I did. Didn't mean to sound redundant.

[Mason]

Originally posted by Sayhey
It could be little green men from Mars who took control of those airplanes with their special "techno" beams! It is up to those who believe a premise to prove it! If Bush wants us to believe that Iraq was involved in 9/11 he must show the world the proof!

Edit: Mason, you got there before I did. Didn't mean to sound redundant.

:)

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by chadfromdallas
They could be involved. You do not know more than what the news puts out and neither do I.

It's been said before: if there was a relevant link between 9/11 and Iraq, Bush would have, for damn sure, dragged it out and beated it to death by now in order to bring world support for the Iraq conquest.

He asked every agency at his disposal to come up with any connection, however tenuous, between the two. There was no connection found.

[Pinto]

Originally posted by chadfromdallas
We don't need to stop acting like anything; other countries need to relize there are problems to take care of so we won't have to take care of them for them.

The US is the problem.

[Code101]

Originally posted by Pinto
The US is the problem.

You only wish!

[chadfromdallas]

Originally posted by Pinto
The US is the problem.


Nope, its all about Canada ;)

[Pinto]

Originally posted by chadfromdallas
How do you know they weren't? You don't.

Ahh yes, guilty until bombed and proven innocent.

If no evidence is required then perhaps it was New Zealand, Tonga or even Mars behind the attacks

[Pinto]

Originally posted by chadfromdallas
They could be involved. You do not know more than what the news puts out and neither do I.

That would be that "lack of knowledge" that was mentioned earlier.

Incase of lack of knowledge, just jump to a conclusion that suits.

[chadfromdallas]

Originally posted by Pinto
Ahh yes, guilty until bombed and proven innocent.

If no evidence is required then perhaps it was New Zealand, Tonga or even Mars behind the attacks


Your next :)

[Pinto]

Originally posted by chadfromdallas
Nope, its all about Canada ;)

with their evil little eyes and flapping heads so full of lies;)

[Pinto]

Originally posted by chadfromdallas
Your next :)

Luckily NZ doesn't have anything that the US wants.

Apart perhaps from a proper democracy and a good international reputation.;)

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Pinto
Luckily NZ doesn't have anything that the US wants.


you guys got a Z in your name!

[Code101]

Originally posted by Pinto
Luckily NZ doesn't have anything that the US wants.

Apart perhaps from a proper democracy and a good international reputation.;)

That's right! The US is a Republic, not a Democracy. My liberal friends don't know what a Republic is. The founding fathers of America wanted it that way. Study up on what a Republic is and how it differs from Democracy.

Look, I have nothing against NZ. I would love to visit there some day. I have the problem with France, Germany and their little flagship, the UN. I know there is good people in France and Germany. I think it's their leaders that need to shape up.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Code101
That's right! The US is a Republic, not a Democracy. My liberal friends don't know what a Republic is. The founding fathers of America wanted it that way. Study up on what a Republic is and how it differs from Democracy.


I think you need to study up. There is no contradiction between a republic and a democracy. A republic refers to how a country's government is structured - it is a representative democracy. A democracy refers to the people controlling their government. If you want to argue that we no longer control our government because of the 2000 election - then I might agree with you.

[Mason]

Originally posted by Code101
That's right! The US is a Republic, not a Democracy. My liberal friends don't know what a Republic is. The founding fathers of America wanted it that way. Study up on what a Republic is and how it differs from Democracy.

Look, I have nothing against NZ. I would love to visit there some day. I have the problem with France, Germany and their little flagship, the UN. I know there is good people in France and Germany. I think it's their leaders need to shape up.

Liberals don't know the difference between a republic and a democracy?

Also, interesting how you call the UN France and Germany's flagship considering that we set it up after WWII. Further, its forerunner was the league of nations, the idea of another US President. You might also note that Dubya's father also thought highly of the UN and made sure to include them in the first Gulf War.

Finally, as you are a self-proclaimed Republican strategist, wouldn't you feel it is prudent to refrain from further insulting the UN considering that Bush is now asking them for billions in aid and thousands of troops? Just a thought.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Code101
I know there is good people in France and Germany. I think it's their leaders that need to shape up.

because they urged caution in the race to invade iraq? errrr... didn't they turn out to be correct?

[Code101]

Originally posted by Mason
You might also note that Dubya's father also thought highly of the UN and made sure to include them in the first Gulf War.

Finally, as you are a self-proclaimed Republican strategist, wouldn't you feel it is prudent to refrain from further insulting the UN considering that Bush is now asking them for billions in aid and thousands of troops? Just a thought.

First, I don't agree with George Bush the father. He thought too much of the UN.

The UN was originally created after WWII to be a place where countries could come to the table and talk. It’s 180 from what it was meant to do. It now seeks to be the world government. Any body that creates laws other than the Federal, State and Local government is not within what the founding fathers had in mind. I don’t like the sound of international law. Another foreign body should not be allowed to set laws for America. The founding fathers would turn in their grave if they knew half of what is going on.

[Pinto]

Originally posted by Code101
That's right! The US is a Republic, not a Democracy. My liberal friends don't know what a Republic is. The founding fathers of America wanted it that way. Study up on what a Republic is and how it differs from Democracy.

Look, I have nothing against NZ. I would love to visit there some day. I have the problem with France, Germany and their little flagship, the UN. I know there is good people in France and Germany. I think it's their leaders that need to shape up.

According to the Cambridge online dictionary.

A republic is a country without a King or Queen, usually governed by the elected representatives of the people and a president.


One would imagine that the process of election is where the democracy comes in.

Actually, I was wrong to make that comment about democracy. Your Government is quite obviously elected by the people, which is democracy. It's only when the politicians have gained office that they then govern on behalf of the people that paid their way to the Whitehouse.

I think maybe a better description of the US at the moment would be Banana Republic.
(once again the Cambridge Dictionary)

a small country, especially in South and Central America, that is poor and often badly and immorally ruled.



Obviously, the US is neither small or poor. But the rest of the description fits perfectly.

I'm glad you have nothing against my country. Your reasons for disliking "old europe" are simply that they wont buckle under and do what big-bully US wants.

It's always amusing to hear the UN called weak and ineffectual, when it tries to stand up against US lies and warmongering.

Apparently a strong decisive UN would roll over and beg to all US demands.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by Code101
Another foreign body should not be allowed to set laws for America.

Following that line of reasoning, no foreign body should be allowed to set laws for any country.

Why should the US be allowed to attack another country under the auspices of holding up UN treaties, then?

[Mason]

Originally posted by Code101
First, I don't agree with George Bush the father. He thought too much of the UN.

The UN was originally created after WWII to be a place where countries could come to the table and talk. It’s 180 from what it was meant to do. It now seeks to be the world government. Any body that creates laws other than the Federal, State and Local government is not within what the founding fathers had in mind. I don’t like the sound of international law. Another foreign body should not be allowed to set laws for America. The founding fathers would turn in their grave if they knew half of what is going on.

Are you reading that Left Behind crap, by chance? The UN does not want to be the one world government. Such postulations are nonsense.

I agree that the founders would be turning in their grave, only for different reasons. I believe they would be embarrased at the way the Republicans have supresssed information (Cheney's task force, 28 pages in the 9-11 report,etc) supressed civil liberties (Ashcroft) hijacked an election (Bush v. Gore), etc etc (see: Texas redistricting, California recall, Enron, FCC deregulations, EPA/9-11 mess, etc etc).

However, the Founders certainly understood the importance of international law. Many of our earlier SCOTUS cases are based on international law (see: The Antelope case). Maritime law is based on international law. I.L. is not something new, nor were our Founders opposed to it as dramatically as you state.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Code101
First, I don't agree with George Bush the father. He thought too much of the UN.

The UN was originally created after WWII to be a place where countries could come to the table and talk. It’s 180 from what it was meant to do. It now seeks to be the world government. Any body that creates laws other than the Federal, State and Local government is not within what the founding fathers had in mind. I don’t like the sound of international law. Another foreign body should not be allowed to set laws for America. The founding fathers would turn in their grave if they knew half of what is going on.

International law is done with our participation through treaties. The constitution recognizes the validity of these laws and our being subject to them. I assume you disagree with GATT and all such agreements. That only shows how far out of the mainstream your views are.

[Thanatoast]

Originally posted by Code101
The UN was originally created after WWII to be a place where countries could come to the table and talk. It’s 180 from what it was meant to do. It now seeks to be the world government. Any body that creates laws other than the Federal, State and Local government is not within what the founding fathers had in mind. I don’t like the sound of international law. Another foreign body should not be allowed to set laws for America. The founding fathers would turn in their grave if they knew half of what is going on.
The UN is not 180 from what is was meant to do. The US has placed a combination of unrealistic expectations and limitations on what it does. We expect the UN to police the world, but do not give it the authority to do so. It does NOT seek to be a world government, and in fact, cannot be one. The UN does NOT make international law, IL is based on custom, treaty, and judicial interpretation. The genereal assembly of the UN specifically makes "recommendations" which may be adopted or ignored by member nations.

Why exactly do you think the founding fathers would not approve of the UN? Wasn't their main beef about taxation w/o representation? The US has more "representation" in the UN than all but four other members, and that's probably debatable as well.

And btw, a lotta stuff's happened since people wore powdered wigs, especially in our own country with our own laws. I think the FF would be more upset with what we've done to ourselves.

edit: typos (gotta use that preview!)