George Bush Speech

[Gurnox]

Listened to George Bushs' inauguration speech on the radio the other day. The blokes a sodding madman who thinks he's on a mission from God.

The only question is which country will be next? My money's on Syria. Please [insert diety of your choice] not North Korea..........

 

[SilverHood]

Iran I think, but I'm fearing it's going to be North Korea... can easily see China getting involved if that happens, and then it's WW3, and we're gonna see the nukes fall.

 

[Tom]

Don't be silly.

 

[Cyfr]

the nukes must have gone past their bestbefore date by now..

 

[Gurnox]

the nukes must have gone past their bestbefore date by now..

The US military budget stands at around $420.7 billion. They can probably afford some new ones.

$420.7 billion...... Obscene.

His speech targeted non-democratic regiemes and made promises to tackle them . If he has the guts to go for China, he's more insane than I thought.

I think he'll justify trade with China, and avoidance of war with North Korea, by following the 'we're creating a middle class in China thereby creating a demand for democracy' argument.

He'll stick with easy targets. Which is why I think Syria will be the one. Next favourite - Iran. Might even be Saudi Arabia, but I reckon there are too many vested US interests over there for them to wade in.

 

[Tom]

$420.7 billion...... Obscene.

US military spending as a percentage of GDP is actually quite conservative compared to many other countries around the world - 3.7% I think at the moment. Thats actually much lower than its been in previous years.

The US is just following a pattern of Empire building thats been going on ever since the Romans were building forts in this country. The only difference is that the stakes are a bit higher these days.

Personally I don't buy all this Bush-madman bollocks. I think hes just out to secure the economic future of his country, and I can't blame him for that. Ronnie Reagan was a much more frightening president, and quite demonstrably incapable of carrying out his duties at times.

 

[Gurnox]

I think hes just out to secure the economic future of his country, and I can't blame him for that.

Not done an astonishing job of that so far, has he?

The 'New Economy' was a total disaster, that admittedly Bush had nothing to do with, that America has not ever really recovered from. The dollar is worth pretty much sod all these days, and the Amercian stock market is suffering from an extreme lack of confidence. And oil prices....... This is before we even touch upon the extensive job losses, counter-productive tax breaks for the wealthy and the huge increase in military expenditure of the last Bush term in govornment.

Americas foreign trade policy is, pretty much, totally at odds with Bushs' inauguration speech and sabre rattling rhetoric. China is one of Americas main trading partners. So how exactly will alienating them, as an enemy of democracy, help Americas economy?

Bush may well be trying to build an empire and, yes, the stakes are very high. But he's going to fuck it up. And it's the rest of the world that will have to suffer the consequences. Pointless war after pointless war, and the gradual erosion of freedom after freedom based on some stupid, paranoid idea of international terrorism. Terrorism that his hideous global policies will fuel.

I remember Reagan well. A loon. I still thank my lucky stars he was not around at the time of the Cuban missile crisis. I think Bush just shades it in the megalomaniac nutter stakes though.

 

[Escape]

'I had the opportunity to go out to Goree Island and talk about what slavery meant to America. It's very interesting when you think about it, the slaves who left here to go to America, because of their steadfast and their religion and their belief in freedom, helped change America. America is what it is today because of what went on in the past.'

'If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow.'

'[We will] use our technology to enhance uncertainty abroad.'

'...more and more of our imports are coming from overseas.'

Bush is a genius. The whole thing is an act and he laughs himself to sleep everynight, at all the stupid people in the world.

 

[Gurnox]

Bush is a genius. The whole thing is an act and he laughs himself to sleep everynight, at all the stupid people in the world.

So, you think he made those comments on purpose? You think that his advisors weren't cringing as he ad-libbed yet another stupid comment into the speech that they had so carefully prepared for him?

If Bush is a genius, I am glad to be stupid.

 

[Driwen]

The only question is which country will be next? My money's on Syria. Please [insert diety of your choice] not North Korea..........

uhm I dont think the US congress would let him go to war with another country, without getting some kind of peace in Iraq first or atleast I hope. And I dont think there will be peace any time soon in Iraq.

 

[Bodhi]

Gurnox is wrong. Now there's a fucking shock.

 

[Gurnox]

uhm I dont think the US congress would let him go to war with another country, without getting some kind of peace in Iraq first or atleast I hope. And I dont think there will be peace any time soon in Iraq.

Well, it would be nice to think so. Iraq is, undoubtedly, a bit of a mess at the moment. But then Afghanistan wasn't exactly perfect....

The tone of Bushs' inaugural (damn my spelling) speech does give cause for concern. You can read it at:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Inauguration/wireStory?id=428365

 

[Ukle]

uhm I dont think the US congress would let him go to war with another country, without getting some kind of peace in Iraq first or atleast I hope. And I dont think there will be peace any time soon in Iraq.

Exactly, its for this reason the next target will be Iran as the US doesn't need to do the shooting. US provide's the intel on the ground and let the Israel's do the airstrikes on the Iranian Nuclear assets.

 

[Munkey]

I dont think he can invade anywhere for the rest of his term though.

 

[Sar]

I said to my wife the other night that he might just be enough of a simpleton to actually try to take on North Korea, thereby starting a nuclear war.

Would not surprise me.

That said, the North Koreans are cruel bastards that do need sorting out, but it would have dire consequences.

 

[Stazbumpa]

Agree with Sar (sometimes ). North Korea could be beaten, but the problem is that they wouldn't play by the same rules we would, so the cost of winning would be massive.
This is the problem with these nations getting hold of nukes, hence my support for any action that PREVENTS such a nation getting these weapons in the first place.

Best course of action with Korea is to support the South and contain the North. They can spout off as much anti-western rhetoric as they want then, coz nobody will be listening anyhow.

 

[nath]

This is the problem with these nations getting hold of nukes, hence my support for any action that PREVENTS such a nation getting these weapons in the first place.

Where is Iraqs Minority Report tbh.

 

[Mazling]

http://web.morons.org/article.jsp?sectionid=7&id=5911

 

[maxi]

iran is next and they won't go after china as it owns a shed load of their debt at the moment. it's keeping the american dollar afloat.

 

[maxi]

That said, the North Koreans are cruel bastards that do need sorting out, but it would have dire consequences.

Sorting out how?

I hate this assumption that we are the worlds moral fucking guardian, as though we've got it 'right' and eevryone should follow. It's fucking insane and it's part of the reason the UK was able to go to war on such shitty grounds in the first place.

 

[maxi]

Agree with Sar (sometimes ). North Korea could be beaten, but the problem is that they wouldn't play by the same rules we would, so the cost of winning would be massive.
This is the problem with these nations getting hold of nukes, hence my support for any action that PREVENTS such a nation getting these weapons in the first place..

Same goes for the US. 'these' nations won't just launch a nuclear attack, they wont do it out of the fucking blue. If they are provoked then MAYBE. Why are they more likely to launch an attack than the US? I understand they have less of a military but not even George W(the biggest nut of all) would launch a nuclear attack lightly. What I'm saying is....'these' countries are well aware of the consequences...why would they want Nuclear Fallout more than anyone else? and if you are of the position that we should get involved there are about 1 billion better ways of doing so.

beaten? rules? what rules do we play by?
beaten? like....we start a war on them and innocent people get slaughtered...thousands of people die and for what?

you're a nutcase.

 

[Platin]

Iran I think, but I'm fearing it's going to be North Korea... can easily see China getting involved if that happens, and then it's WW3, and we're gonna see the nukes fall.

He might be an idiot, but his advisors are not. Nor are the chinese, have some faith.

Believe it or not, but Iran is one of the greatest contributors of terrorism. If Bush wants to deal with it - let him. I'd rather see the terrorist goofballs go for the yankies than to trying to fight "european infidel expansion" or whatever they want to categorize it as. The americans are dangerous, but terrorism is much more dangerous imo. Especially for europe, they don't exactly love or cherish the common history and I honestly believe they will never ever trust us fully, no matter what we do. I can understand why, and it scares me to be honest.

And Blair couldn't be so dumb that he would follow Bush into Iran, could he?