More politics...Bush's National Address

[WhiteXFire]

...just ended.


For those who caught it, any thoughts?

[igo4bmx]

he has a solid strategery

[97TurboDSM]

didnt see it. how did he sound and what were the main points he made?

[WhiteXFire]

Well, when you have professionals write a speech for you that you read from a teleprompter, you can actually sound intelligent. Now, if someone asked him to define half of the words he used...

In all honesty, it was a fairly decent speech. It lasted about 17 minutes, and he basically talked about how the world has changed since 9/11, how we're only at the beginning of a war that will define the century, a struggle over civilization itself. Basically, he justified the war in Iraq and the need for sacrifice to ensure liberty for the United States and the world.

[97TurboDSM]

Well, when you have professionals write a speech for you that you read from a teleprompter, you can actually sound intelligent. Now, if someone asked him to define half of the words he used...

hahahaha agreed...

sounds like he said things hes been saying since the first day we invaded Iraq and doesnt seem like i missed a whole lot

[wgknestrick]

My thoughts on the whole reason for invading Iraq:



US gave Iraq plenty of weapons to fight the Soviets a while back. This has been verified.

US gave Iraq plenty of BIOLOGICAL weapons in this mix. This has been verified by a close relative of mine who was in the first Gulf War and suffers from "Gulf War Syndrome" He is the only remaining survivor of his Ranger Platoon. He has been "informed" that what he was exposed to was made by Dupont Chemical in De/NJ. What exactly it was remains classified, but they are closely monitoring him (probably gathering data) on why he has survived.

Iraq still posessed weapons of US origin after the first Gulf War. US Gov knew this and was worried with all the terrorist activities, hence war. US Gov was worried that their own weapons would be used against them with all the recent terrorist activity. This would be a total outrage if discovered by the public. Now war was started, how to explain how Iraq obtained WMDs? This would be a tricky answer to justify war against a country to get back weapons that you originally gave them.

Bush Admin just figured it would be better politically to claim "no WMDs found" and leave it up to us to assume that Iraq just destroyed them or there were none to begin with.

The US government is not the bumbling idiots that everyone makes them out to be. It's just that they are always flip flopping and supporting foriegn groups that the current admin thinks is right, isn't always the "right" decision. We always stick our noses in things under the "Democracy" goodwill to try to get something valuable in return. 10 yrs later we find we supported the wrong side.

I still don't know why we think democracy is the end to everyone's problems. We have probably the most F'ed up and corrupt system there is. It's just that the corruption isn't going to just one person, it's thousands. Retards and unemployeed criminals are allowed to vote, and their vote counts just a much as yours. Sounds like a great system.

[97TurboDSM]

Originally Posted by wgknestrick

My thoughts on the whole reason for invading Iraq:



US gave Iraq plenty of weapons to fight the Soviets a while back. This has been verified.

US gave Iraq plenty of BIOLOGICAL weapons in this mix. This has been verified by a close relative of mine who was in the first Gulf War and suffers from "Gulf War Syndrome" He is the only remaining survivor of his Ranger Platoon. He has been "informed" that what he was exposed to was made by Dupont Chemical in De/NJ. What exactly it was remains classified, but they are closely monitoring him (probably gathering data) on why he has survived.

Iraq still posessed weapons of US origin after the first Gulf War. US Gov knew this and was worried with all the terrorist activities, hence war. US Gov was worried that their own weapons would be used against them with all the recent terrorist activity. This would be a total outrage if discovered by the public. Now war was started, how to explain how Iraq obtained WMDs? This would be a tricky answer to justify war against a country to get back weapons that you originally gave them.

Bush Admin just figured it would be better politically to claim "no WMDs found" and leave it up to us to assume that Iraq just destroyed them or there were none to begin with.

The US government is not the bumbling idiots that everyone makes them out to be. It's just that they are always flip flopping and supporting foriegn groups that the current admin thinks is right, isn't always the "right" decision. We always stick our noses in things under the "Democracy" goodwill to try to get something valuable in return. 10 yrs later we find we supported the wrong side.

I still don't know why we think democracy is the end to everyone's problems. We have probably the most F'ed up and corrupt system there is. It's just that the corruption isn't going to just one person, it's thousands. Retards and unemployeed criminals are allowed to vote, and their vote counts just a much as yours. Sounds like a great system.

i was just reading the news on abc because i dont have TV yet and saw this article and immediately thought of your post..http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=2424395
claims "No Gulf War Syndrome" sounds absurd to me but read for yourself and see what you think

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by wgknestrick

I still don't know why we think democracy is the end to everyone's problems. We have probably the most F'ed up and corrupt system there is. It's just that the corruption isn't going to just one person, it's thousands. Retards and unemployeed criminals are allowed to vote, and their vote counts just a much as yours. Sounds like a great system.

Democracy may not be perfect, but it is the most perfect system we have.

While many people will argue (and I would agree) that the "best" system of government is an enlightened monarch, the problem with that is finding a concurrent string of enlightened monarchs.

I would like you to name for me the system that you feel would be better than Democracy. What country in this world should we model ourselves after? Based on your comments I am guessing that you would prefer an oligarchy where only the priviledged few (read wealthy) are allowed to have any decisions on the course of government actions. I am happy for you that you feel like such an elitist to think that poor people, or the un-intelligent should be treated as mere cattle in our society. Hey, instead of keeping them around, why don't we just kill all those who you deem unworthy to live in our society?

Just some parting wisdom..."We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. Among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Just because people in this thread feel their credentials need to be posted:

Masters in Political Science, Boston College
Bachelors in Political Science, Boston College
Associates in Economics, Stockton College

Not that any of that means anything at the end of the day. I've met plenty of people far more enlightened and intelligent then myself who have never set foot in a college classroom.

[PotenzaSub]

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

I would like you to name for me the system that you feel would be better than Democracy.

a Potenzocrasy

(Just curious: What are you doing with those credentials of yours? Do you have a job in politics?)

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by PotenzaSub

a Potenzocrasy

(Just curious: What are you doing with those credentials of yours? Do you have a job in politics?)

I suppose the potenzocrasy falls under the enlightened monarchy that I mentioned, lol.

As far as my job, I did work extensively in politics as a campaign manager in both state and federal elections throughout college. However, I will admit that I became a bit disollusioned with the whole thing. I am now applying what is essentially nothing more than liberal arts degrees in the busines field. I'm the Asset Manager for a rather large trucking company, which basically means that I am in charge of purchasing, selling and managing all of the companies equipment. I still dabble in politics and was active in the South Jersey area as a member of the Young Republicans and campaigned for Bush in 2004. The only reason I even mentioned my degrees, is because someone earlier in the thread someone tried to accredit their opinion by saying they were a poli sci major. All that really means is they understand political philosophy and polling, it has nothing to do with actual politics...because politics are really nothing more than opinions and perception.

[97TurboDSM]

^^i agree totally^^ and yes we did give Iraq weapons to fight the soviets..me=political science major and having taken international relations and now currently taking russian politics can toally confirm what wgknestrik has said.

[SmokeyBandit]

Yeah... I think we SHOULD listen to the DNC and give the world a time table of withdrawl. Then the terrorists can wait and as soon as we withdraw... raise hell.

Do the people in the DNC think they (terrorists) are that dumb and live in vacuum?

[PotenzaSub]

Originally Posted by SmokeyBandit

Yeah... I think we SHOULD listen to the DNC and give the world a time table of withdrawl. Then the terrorists can wait and as soon as we withdraw... raise hell.

Do the people in the DNC think they (terrorists) are that dumb and live in vacuum?

It's starting to seem like the Iraqi government needs us to make a time table so they can get off their asses and make their country better. Many senators have been coming back from visits from Iraq and saying that their needs to be a time table. It is the only way the Iraqi government will feel pressured to start providing their own security.

And besides, the terrorists are already raising hell. How much worse can it get besides full-blown official civil war?

[SmokeyBandit]

Originally Posted by PotenzaSub

It's starting to seem like the Iraqi government needs us to make a time table so they can get off their asses and make their country better. Many senators have been coming back from visits from Iraq and saying that their needs to be a time table. It is the only way the Iraqi government will feel pressured to start providing their own security.

And besides, the terrorists are already raising hell. How much worse can it get besides full-blown official civil war?

The fallacy of saying many senators coming back from visits say a time-table is needed are basically Democrats who want to look good in front of the Howard Dean's DNC. Other senators including democrats who visit Iraq come back saying that we need to stay the course and an artificial time-table is unrealistic and foolish--- these Democrats are the black sheep of the Howard Dean's Democratic party.

How long did it take us to get to where we are today? We had a Civil War. We have various movements that greatly impacted the way we live today... woman's suffrage, civil rights, etc.

Getting a stable, self supporting democratic government doesn't happen overnight.

Our troop withdrawl should be event-driven. There is more than just security forces..... where will the money needed to sustain the Iraqi army come from?

What is not covered in the mainstream media are other things, such as:
- Building hospitals
- Building new schools
- Expanding their industrial base
- Rebuild and expand their agricultural base
- Getting their oil extraction equipment running so they can sell oil and spread the wealth within Iraq (instead of Kofi Annan's pocket)

We are helping the Iraqi people doing this. This is not covered in the mainstream media because frankly, it does not draw ratings.

So... there is lot more to the story than just building up Iraq's army-- something mainstream media does not tell you, and a lot of people fall for it.

[PotenzaSub]

Originally Posted by SmokeyBandit

The fallacy of saying many senators coming back from visits say a time-table is needed are basically Democrats who want to look good in front of the Howard Dean's DNC. ...these Democrats are the black sheep of the Howard Dean's Democratic party.

I suppose I was thinking optimistically and hoping these senators are actually telling the truth and not saying these things just for re-election. But, it's hard to say whether or not what these senators are saying is genuine or just a facade they are putting on for the public.

Originally Posted by SmokeyBandit

How long did it take us to get to where we are today? We had a Civil War. We have various movements that greatly impacted the way we live today... woman's suffrage, civil rights, etc.

Getting a stable, self supporting democratic government doesn't happen overnight.

Thats a very interesting way of looking at it. I guess you could call it "growing pains."

But, there doesnt seem to be any end in sight when it comes to this sectarian violence. Neither the shiites nor the Sunnis seem to be budging. It's going to turn into another Israel and Palestine. Whether the US can stop that from happening is questionable. But I suppose they should at least stay in Iraq and try.

[97TurboDSM]

sometimes it seems that way.

[PotenzaSub]

I watched parts of the address. Only reason I didn't watch the whole thing was becuase I view these kinds of speeches as "mild propaganda." President Bush made it seem as if Hussein was an immediate threat to the world when indeed he was not.

(With hindsight I also believe that invading Iraq caused the Middle East to become unbalanced - Iran now has no one to counter-balance it's power. Iraq probably would have already started a war with Iran with it's nuclear ambitions if we hadn't liberated it. But now we face a more powerful Iran. However, I would have supported liberating Iraq immediatly after the first Gulf War. Us not going into Iraq after they invaded Kuwait is like the Allied Forces stopping at Poland during WW2. So, basically, I did support OIF before Iran become a factor.)

Originally Posted by 97TurboDSM

^^i agree totally^^ and yes we did give Iraq weapons to fight the soviets..me=political science major and having taken international relations and now currently taking russian politics can toally confirm what wgknestrik has said.

I was only born in 1988, so much of my information of world/US history during the 1980-90s is derived from documentaries. But, I do not recall Iraq ever fighting the Soviets. The Iraqi army under Hussein reflected Soviet tactics, etc. You may be confusing Iraq with Afghanistan, or the Soviets with Iran. The US gave Iraq money, not actual weapons, to fight against the Iranians. And, the US gave the Taliban weapons and money to fight against the Soviets.

[wgknestrick]

Originally Posted by PotenzaSub

I was only born in 1988, so much of my information of world/US history during the 1980-90s is derived from documentaries. But, I do not recall Iraq ever fighting the Soviets. The Iraqi army under Hussein reflected Soviet tactics, etc. You may be confusing Iraq with Afghanistan, or the Soviets with Iran. The US gave Iraq money, not actual weapons, to fight against the Iranians. And, the US gave the Taliban weapons and money to fight against the Soviets.

No you are right, I am somewhat wrong. What was going on was this:

In 1982 the Pentagon's secret _Defense Guidance_ document stated that the Soviet Union might extend its forces into the Gulf area "by means other than outright invasion." It continued: "Whatever the circumstances, we should be prepared to introduce American forces directly into the region should it appear that the security of access to Persian Gulf oil is threatened...."<49> In the Senate, many argued that there was too much emphasis on countering the USSR, whereas the focus should be on "deterring and, if necessary, fighting regional wars or leftist or nationalist insurgencies that threatened U.S. and allied access to the region's oil supplies."<50>

The official line was that the RDF would be deployed when a government invited it in to repel a Soviet attack

It wasn't exactly a "war" but more of a fear that the Soviets would eventually expand into possibly Iraq / Iran. I suspect we secretly supported both during and after the Iran / Iraq war to deter invasion by the Soviets.

[wgknestrick]

I just want to know why I am one of the few that has figured out the "reason" for no WMDs will all the billions that are spent on so-called investigative reporting in this country.

I still love it when all the major "news" channels keep replaying the obviously AND verified staged Muslum videos of "tradgedy" that these people undergo.

http://www.geocities.com/realtrueact...akeImages.html

[97TurboDSM]

ok perhaps i should have said "AID" instead of weapons