Speech from Bush

[thorwyntf]

Nah, I don´t agree here. Of course the main reason behind all this is oil. There are huge unexploited areas in SW Iraq with assumed oil-ressources. And a puppet on a string leading Iraq would ensure the US access to those ressources for the future.
Why are the US trying so hard to convince the rest of the world, that Saddam is the source of all evil? If it was Bushs intention to show a victory, why doesn´t he chose Northern Vietnam as his target? It would be much easier to create a scenario, where the western world is defending fredom and democracy. N.Vietnam is officially threatening US with a nuclear war. What else does it take to draw the attention of US on them? A victory over N-Vietnam would bring the desired victory AND would cure the american Vietnam-trauma. So if that´s what the US want, then why are they still focusing Iraq, risking destabilization inside the NATO, not caring about their reputation in the world by bringing up silly and ridiculous "proves" of iraqish mass weapons?

11/9 didn´t come out of the blue. It´s not as if some weird hardcore mulsim just went nuts and started his little crusade against the western civilization. 11/9 has a history, has reasons and has roots. It´s been an inhuman and disgusting act of terror, no doubt. And although Bin Ladens speeches and explanations don´t seem to make any sense at all, it´s obvious, that the hatred and rage against the US is a result of the US politic and behaivour against the islamistic world over the last couple of decades.

So far, the US never had to face a war on their own territory. War has always been something that´s happening somewhere else in the world, where the CNN cameras can see what they want to see and create those naive "Mr.President is trying to protect our country" point of views.
I don´t hate America, not at all. In fact, I got quite many friends over there, some of them even in the army. Still, people in the world NEED to open their eyes and start thinking.. and DON`T blindly follow the machine behind all this. There´s no good and no bad!

 

[Neural Network]

I have a different angle on this subject that I’ll try to explain. Let’s see if I succeed.
Try for a moment to stop looking at chimp called Bush and instead try to think about the situation in Iraq. Saddam is one true dictator. Even with the trade blockade he’s still able to strengthen the military a build new palaces, but there is no money for medicine or food for the Iraqi people. He strictly controls the Iraqi media and all opposition against him is removed. More people in Iraq have “disappeared” under Saddam's rule, than anywhere else in the world.
What can be done to change that situation? (If it must change of course.)
We already have an idea what will happen if Bush gets his way.
Can we have a peaceful solution?
We could cancel the trade blockade has been mentioned. But I certain that this will result in Saddam using many more money on weapons, because he needs to be able to enforce martial law, otherwise he could loose control over his people. So he will acquire toxic and biologic weapons first chance he gets, to strengthen his position against the opposition in Iraq, the Arabian countries and the rest of the world.
A would be so happy if Saddam died of a heart attack to morrow, but still his family will have all the power, so not much help for the Iraqi people in that scenario.
Finally we could hope for the Iraqi people to take the matter in their own hands and get rid of Saddam. But that will require no less than a civil war between the people and the military. And civil wars aren’t known to be low on civilian or innocent casualties.
Maybe it would be for the best if the western world did go in and removed Saddam in a quick military action. Then let it be USA or NATO or what ever, but I really believe the Iraqi people will be better of without Saddam.
Was I clear enough? If you got a better solution, you’re welcome to post it.

 

[Belsameth]

I think I don't really object to the removing of Saddam, as I do for the hypocritical reasons behind it.
if it was the human thing to do, why remove Saddam but let an entire continent die of Hunger, Aids and civil war.
if it was a human thing to do, why is China still occupying and opressing China.
why is Russia allowed to opress and murder the civilians of Kazagstan(sp?)
why is Israel allowed to wreck entire Palestinian villages

on top of the fact that all those humanitary reasons they drag into it, because they're a convenient justification that happens to be at hand, it'll also bring some severe inbalances in the middle east, where the ballance is already far from stable....

yes, Saddam is a criminal. but sometimes you have to choose a wrong to prevent a bigger wrong.

 

[Neural Network]

So you choose to let his tyranny continue and ignore him, directly put? People are bing oppresed and dying in Iraq, should we cancel the trade blocade and give the people food and medicine (and Saddam his weapons) or not?

 

[Belsameth]

a delicate isssue too.
I think the trade blockade should be lifted tho.
and yes, basically that means that his tirrany will tolerated.
as I said, sometimes you have to choose the less of the 2 evils.

I repeat tho, don't kid yourself into thinking it's about liberating the iraqi people...

 

[thorwyntf]

Of yourse you´re right Neutral. But then, how many countries in the world are being ruled and oppressed by a dictator? Isn´t it a strange coincident, that the US start thinking about the poor people in Iraq all of a sudden? Where´s the precious humanity of the western world when we´re talking about Israel, Russia, China, Africa? People there are suffering too. They´re just not suffering a couple kilometers above oil ressources, which apparently kinda makes them class B suffering people.
But lets assume you´re right. Lets assume, the reason behind all this, behind moving 200.000 soldiers towards Iraq, spending billions of Dollars, risking economical breakdowns, risking the crash of Nato and loss of international reputation.. lets assume the reason behind all this is really humanity. Why don´t they say it then? Why do the keep creating the illusion of the oh so dangerous Saddam and Iraq being a threat to the world? So far, the vocabulary of ALL official sides never contained the words "humanity" and "people". Instead, they´re always talking about mass weapons, Sadddam and AlQaida.. like a mantra.
Removing Saddam is a good thing since he´s just a criminal. But removing him at the cost of a war (.. and there IS no such thing as a quick military action. Even the most optimistical military experts are talking about a couple of weeks if not months) is wrong.

 

[Uncle Sick(tm)]

Well... supposedly all chemical weapons Iraq had, before the U.N inspectors left the country (by the way - they were not forced by the Iraqis to leave - they were rather leaving because of US/UK's latest bombing campaign then...) was a couple of litres of Anthrax.

Due date of Anthrax is approximately 5 years.

On a sidenote - the US have thousands and thousands of warheads with the worst biological and chemical substances.
Every single one of Iraq's neighbors has stocks of Anthrax.

Oh... want to know who delivered the first Anthrax spores to Iraq?

Donald Rumsfeld. No kidding.

Saddam Hussein is in one-line with Hitler, Stalin and Mao - true.
But what about Iraq's neighbors? There is not a single democratically elected governement in the region.


And it's the US threatening "world peace", transatlantic relationships and the stability of Nato at the moment- not Iraq.

I can't really blame Kyra for being uninformed - I blame her for spewing off her crap and then ignoring the replies...- check CNN.com, check msnbc.com, check foxnews.com..... and worst time.com.
Filled with pro-warmongering propaganda. Poor Americans... Goebbels has risen from his grave............

It is sickening how the US governement is controlling the media meanwhile.

 

[old.Gombur Glodson]

Originally posted by Soulcatcher
if it was a human thing to do, why is China still occupying and opressing China.

Because its THEIR country?

*cough*Tibet*cough*

/em cackles

 

[Uncle Sick(tm)]

Originally posted by thorwyntf
If it was Bushs intention to show a victory, why doesn´t he chose Northern Vietnam as his target?

While we're at it... North Korea.

My President tries to protect my country and rid the world of Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden and yet you think he's evil???

:lol:

He tried to kill my dad! - George 'Vodka' Bush

 

[Neural Network]

No, I don’t believe it will liberate the Iraqi people. Most likely they’ll get another tyrant if Saddam is removed.
But my point is that it now looks like the argument not to go war against Saddam, is because Bush is only doing it for the oil. So Saddam isn’t removed and can continue to oppress and kill all opposition I Iraq. Following that logic, it is now the people who are against the war who values oil over human life.
No war because it’s about oil->Saddam stays->Innocent Iraqi citizens gets killed.

 

[thorwyntf]

While we're at it... North Korea.

omg! *blush* of course you´re right :/
/em slaps himself

@Neutral

No war because it’s about oil->Saddam stays->Innocent Iraqi citizens gets killed.

You´re switching cause and effect m8.
If I get your intentions right, a war for oil is ok as long as it´s simultaneously helping oppressed people? And not only that, also people, who´re supporting a war for oil (while it´s helping oppressed people) are more pacfist that people who´re trying to solve a problem politlcally and don´t give a damn about potential oil ressources?
I´ve said it before and I say it again Neutral, Iraq isn´t the only country that´s suffering from a dictator. And I seriously don´t believe that Mr. President was sitting in his chair, eating brezels and watching a documentation about Iraq while zapping TV and then, two hours later, raised his head and said "F*ck me sideways! Those guys are suffering!!! To Arms, America!".

 

[Neural Network]

People always talk about the world isn’t black and white, and try to show just how difficult a subject like this is. That’s why I use a reverse argumentation.
I ask, isn’t it a good thing oppressed people being helped, even if the person helping it didn’t do it with that in mind?
Of course Bush doesn’t care about the Iraqi people, he’s a fool. But even fools can accidentally do something good.
Soulie was talking about choosing the lesser of two evils.
What will you prefer?
1. Living under an American puppet government, which pays you poorly for your oil. But would help you with food and medicine supply and secure the basic human rights and safety through UN-troops.
2. Living under a dictatorship, which doesn’t pay you at all for your work and only spend money on the army and for the ruling classes. Which brainwashes your children and kills all who disagree.

 

[Belsameth]

Who's he helping with throwing the entire middle east into disarray?
Who's he helping by triggering a hailstorm of suicide bombers and acts or random violence against westerlings (not that I mean that westerlings are nay better then the rest of the world population)

 

[Neural Network]

Good point Soulcatcher, but isn’t the Middle East not already in disarray?
And the talk about masses of suicide bombers were also used as a reason not to attack Afghanistan, and as far as I know there hasn’t been a dramatically rise in those lately.
But you’re right; it is maybe to big of a gamble so in the end I’m just glad it isn’t my decision at all, and that I don’t have any personal relationship in either Iraq or the States.
So I’ll just go back to my electronics, not caring about people I’ve never met.

 

[Euthanasia.]

Bush wants war.
Reason for war: Bush wants oil.
Scape goat for war: religion.
End of story.

 

[Belsameth]

Neural: in a bigger state of disarray

your last comment I can wholeheartly agree with tho.
they'll eventually do whatever they wqant to anyway, so why bother to care...

 

[calif101]

The main thing is.....no matter the true reasons ( its not trying to help ppl thats for sure) Bush and though him America wants war and theres not a damm thing anyone of us can do about it.

I just like to point out that in 1982 when the Falklands ( British lands with British ppl living there) America was saying war is not the answer and the UK should not go and kick them out but talk to them give them what they want,Well America has double standards its ok for them to do what ever they want but not for any other country.

America wants war and they will make damm sure they get their war.I just wish we in the UK didn`t have a puppy dog like blair but one who was to say ok America you go it alone see how hard it is in this world without any friendly countrys.

 

[Neural Network]

Did you know?:
The United States of America is not a person, it is a country.
George Bush is a person, not a country.

 

[old.Atrox]

How about USA started to clean up after there "humanity wars",
like Balkan or Afghanistan.

or how about USA started to fix their politics before acting worldcop, trying to force their belifs on the rest of the world ?
How many innocent ppl will get killed in this upcoming war, a hell lot of more then those killed by sadam.


I start to understand arabs hate toward USA.

 

[old.Dillinja]

Originally posted by old.Atrox

I start to understand arabs hate toward USA.

Same.

 

[calif101]

I start to understand arabs hate toward USA. [/B][/QUOTE]




snap

 

[Sibanac]

Originally posted by Cavex ElSaviour
the only reason bush know for sure that sadam has mass destruction weaps is cuz the us gave it to sadam during the iran-irak war. I just don't see the link between sadam and osama, as far as i know sadam is strongly against very religious islam. anyway, bush is shooting his own foot, before you know it korea will fire a misile in the direction of washington.

Back to topic, OMFG, LOL., nice speech

i know the Iraq Osama connection, they both recieved money and weapons from the US

ooohh wait we are not suposed to mention that

 

[gengi]

The reason as far as I am concerned is immaterial. America does not need the oil from Iraq. France Germany and Russia are owed billions of dollars from Saddam Husseins regime and are afraid that if it is toppled they will not see any of that money. I do not think it is a 'Crusade' on the part of Bill and the poodle, I actually think, and this is the really scary part, that they believe in what we ARE going to do. All sides are using propaganda and the anti war faction is winning that battle hands down. There are very few 'facts' kicking around lots of rumour and even more speculation. President Bush (sounds like spectacularly good grass) is not known for being the most intelligent of world leaders, but he is also not known as a mass murderer of his native population.
Where would you rather live ? it basically comes down to that.

Later

Gengee

 

[Sigurd]

Originally posted by gengi
President Bush (sounds like spectacularly good grass) is not known for being the most intelligent of world leaders, but he is also not known as a mass murderer of his native population.
Where would you rather live ? it basically comes down to that.

Later

Gengee

That's because he controls the media in america... and sends out his Gestapo, oops, FBI, against anyone who might speak up... dictatorship, anyone?

 

[old.Dillinja]

Originally posted by gengi

Where would you rather live ? it basically comes down to that.

Later

Gengee

That's not the point. The fact is that oil is black gold and America's supply is going to run out in 2020, while other countries supplies such as Russia, Iraq etc. will run out later. Whoever has the oil will be in control when the shit hits the fan (natural resources being depleted etc.) and the Americans don't want to lose control due to a lack of oil.

 

[Uncle Sick(tm)]

 

[gengi]

Originally posted by old.Dillinja


That's not the point. The fact is that oil is black gold and America's supply is going to run out in 2020, while other countries supplies such as Russia, Iraq etc. will run out later. Whoever has the oil will be in control when the shit hits the fan (natural resources being depleted etc.) and the Americans don't want to lose control due to a lack of oil.

Where did you come by this particular piece of information ? I work in the Oil Industry. I am currently on a Rig off the West Coast of Africa developing an Oil Field that has proven reserves of approximately 600 million barrels of Oil, and there are several more fields like it. The 'Oil Supply' will not run out in 20 years. There is a field to the West of Shetland, actually within sight of land that has a couple of billion Barrels of oil just waiting for the technology to get it out. Its called the Clair field and is bigger than the Forties. In the Gulf of Mexico more and more is being found you just need to go into deeper water. Oil is not the driving force behind this war. I agree that it is a finite resource, but I do not agree that 2020 is when it will run out.
You said Americas supply, ok I give you the easy stuff, the inland and shallow water wells will probably be dead in 2020 but the deep and Ultradeepwater oil is still there and will be coming on stream. Then there is the natural gas, there is shed loads of that and the technology exists to make it a viable source of energy for transportation. The infrastructure could take a while to develop though.
Add that to the fact that all the major Oil Companies are actively looking into renewable energy and I do not see a fear of running out of Oil driving this.
My final point may have been simplistic, but I stick by it. Someone mentioned China and Tibet, Uncle Sick mentions North Korea very well in his cartoon. These will along with the tyrannies in Africa and the Middle East and Asia and even in europe be brought to an end. It is called Globalisation, not a good concept in the minds of many but like Pandora's Box it has been opened and unleashed and there is no going back.
Er well I will leave it there as it is getting a bit long
and will someone please reply to my post in the newbie section about skill stuff

Later

Gengee

edited to reflect the published facts about the field I am in (Bonga for those who wish to look it up )

 

[Radghast]

complicated issue. ofc there are many scenarios for how this all could end. Is the case against saddam just?
Yes it is. i think we can all agree that he is a dictator who has inflicted mass suffering on his own people and i do belive that if given the oppurtunity he would strike the west with chemichal/biological of god forbid nuculear weapons.

Does he have this capability? perhaps, there is certainly evidence to prove he has experimented with a myriad of weapons of mass destructions but whether he actually has stockpiles of them is not conclusive.

Oil. ofc this is a factor as the world econmy relys heavily on oil and with such a large percentage of the worlds oil comming from the middle east it is easy to see how people can draw the conclusion that bush just wants control of these resources..

Bush. Here is a man who has not once shown any glimmer of peaceful nature (when he has it has seemed very staged) from 11/9 onwards it would seem that military action has been his primary goal and atm the only thing (imo) stopping the US from launching a attack on Iraq is the pressure from the UN and Tony Blairs eforts to steady his hand and w8 for a UN resolotion to be passed supporting the war. But here in europe Bush does is not popular (to say the least) and i personally have trouble trusting him and i think i always will. He is understadably (sp) looking out for the US best interests but he dosent seem to realise that he is draging the western world into a conflict that the majority want no part of...this is not the sign of a good leader.

Finally, Repercusions of War. best case scenario (in Bushs mind) Saddam is defeated and a democraticaly ellected goverment is in power in Iraq. What happens when in a few months/years time the victims of this fight and their allies respond. 11/9 was a terrible day, but if you think that is bad w8 until they release a dirty bomb (crude nuculear device spreading radiation for hundreds of miles) in downtown washington. They (not sure atm who they are, but there is always a they in these situations) will no doubt respond against a direct military invasion in kind and it will have to top 11/9 to be effective. Thus the cycle begins again..

I have no answers and i feel sorry for those who have to provide them but atm it does seem remarkably like a lose/lose situation. Do nothing and sadam "wins" fight a war and we might all "lose"

/end rant

 

[old.Dillinja]

Originally posted by gengi

Where did you come by this particular piece of information

An official statement by the US government, nobody was supposed to know about it yet but it got leaked.

 

[minstrel_kyra]

a little long, so bear with me (pt.1)

Lets start off with some facts here ok? (little long, but at least I give proof to support my statements)

Where is the proof Bin Laden was supported by Saddam Hussein/Iraq?

When did I say that? I am not a sheep that blindly follows the words of her leader. I simply take in what I hear and decide for myself what I want to believe after investigating both sides. Yes the common thought is that they are indeed linked. It is well known they have met before and they have common interests. Oh wait, here's your proof: Anyone been watching the news about the video of Bin Laden saying that him and Saddam Hussein are indeed working together?
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/topstories/story/0,4386,171423,00.html?

Here is further proof that Iraq is actively planning war against us:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/13/international/middleeast/13IRAQ.html
http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/international.cfm?id=137452003

Well... supposedly all chemical weapons Iraq had, before the U.N inspectors left the country (by the way - they were not forced by the Iraqis to leave - they were rather leaving because of US/UK's latest bombing campaign then...)was a couple of litres of Anthrax.

NOT TRUE!
http://europe.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/04/sprj.irq.unmovic/

And this just in about what Iraq is really hiding:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,894550,00.html

Also, this is what the UK knew back in 2002 and published a report about:
http://www.official-documents.co.uk/document/reps/iraq/contents.htm


You say that Clinton did so much for our county, you insinuate that he was without scandal aside from his total lack of respect of the institution of marriage. Sorry, need to disagree with you.

Fact:
Clinton was involved heavily with Enron.
http://www.newsminute.com/clintonenron.htm (was not able to find exact article in Washington Times since it was an old article). While there has been specualation, there is no proof that Bush did any wrong doing and you have not given any evidence of this claim. If he had, the Democrats would have him in prison by now. And while perhaps not as dangerous to the country, Clinton rented out rooms in the White House to the rich for "donations".
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/02/26/clinton.lincoln/

Another fact:
It is well known that the Clinton administration was heavily involved with China, http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/2/21/181251.shtml and Al Gore accepted bribes, err I mean "donations" from China. One of the world's greatest oppressors of their own people and Clinton made great strides to get support for this country. Plus they had access to very sensitive defense papers. Yeah, that is definately protecting your country.

Originally posted by kr0n
Its Bush's fault I lost money with few transactions in PayPal. I got the idea that dollar was worth more than euro but by the time I got the money I noticed I got less than expected cause of that. Shame!

Err what? Kron you're a moron. Go away before you hurt yourself...this has nothing to do with you or your paypal problems. The US has nothing to do with the Euro. Blame the Europeon leaders for wanting to be under one rule and money.

I can't really blame Kyra for being uninformed - I blame her for spewing off her crap and then ignoring the replies.

I haven't been ignoring this thread, simply sitting back and watching you guys spew hatred and anger. (I will however probably avoid future anti-Bush/American threads). I have waited until now to comment because I wanted to give clear and concise evidence to back up my statements/beliefs. (You have yet to do so, Sick). You could have easily stated your views and agreed to disagree (like quite a few others did) but instead Sick you have chosen to seek me out and do nothing but insult my beliefs and intelligence. And really why should I subject myself to yet another chance of you insulting me and my leader? Oh yes I know, because you are bored and need someone to pick on? And yet, I am here, defending myself and my leader because I feel someone must. No, Bush is no Reagan, but Clinton was far from
the man Jimmy Carter tried to be. Bush is, however, the leader we have and so I have to give him a chance. I honestly cannot see Al Gore having done any better, the man has no backbone whatsoever. Even worse, his policies changed as quickly as public opinion did, just like Clinton. At least Bush doesn't poll the country to decide what he should be in support of or against today. For whatever it’s worth, even Clinton has supported Bush's actions and agreed that Saddam and Bin Laden have to go. (Which btw was something Clinton was unable to accomplish himself.) Even more disturbing is that during Clinton's administration they knew what Bin Laden was up to, knew about the terrorist attacks he was planning and they did nothing.

Now back to Ophra, Jerry Springer and baking chocolate chip cookies, eh?

Yet another self-righteous, pompous and totally asinine assumption of me. You think because I stay at home with my children I am some how less intelligent or below you? (and for the record, I don't watch those mind-numbing lower-class pathetic shows.) Is it any wonder many Americans think Europeans are socialist snobs? Its so very easy to pick apart my country isn't it. Yes we have plenty of sheep, but so does every country. I am truly insulted that you so maliciously throw me into that crowd because I state an opinion that is different than yours. How incredibly narrow-minded of you. I truly wonder what you really think we should do? You have yet to give a reasonable solution, let alone any. Write my congress man telling him not go to war? Just sit and hold hands and sing Cumbaya and hope that the world would rather just hug, share a Coke and get along? Hate to tell you but these men want to see America destroyed. There is no such thing as making peace with them, they will continue to attack us until they succeed. Mostly because we support Israel, plain and simple. I know the rest of the world hates Jewish people and our country's stance in supporting them but I honestly don't give a damn. People always whine about the poor Palestinians. Well what about how they oppressed the Israelites (Yes that would be the JEWISH DESCENDENTS that live in ISRAEL now) for hundreds of years before (and after) Jesus came along? While Sharon has a shady (and disturbing) past, his administration did try to come up with a compromise, to share part of Israel with the Palestinians, but that wasn't good enough. Arafat said it was all or nothing, he is unwilling to compromise. He will not be satisfied until no more Israelites exist. Does that sound like compromise or a peaceful man? We are the only ones keeping Israel from dropping bombs and getting rid of Palestinians once and for all. Was Clinton able to bring peace between these two countries? No. You criticize us when we get involved in world events and you criticize when we don't. I don't like it anymore than anyone else does but sometimes you have to be the aggressor to prevent a bigger aggression. More importantly, you must choose the battles you know you can win.