Quote:Bush Offers Ultimatum to Saddam in Address to Nation
Monday, March 17, 2003
WASHINGTON — President Bush gave Saddam Hussein an ultimatum Monday night -- step down in 48 hours or face war.
"All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict commenced at a time of our choosing," Bush said from an area of the White House called the Cross Hallway.
Aides said the president was reserving the Oval Office as the setting for a later address when the moment of conflict begins, as everyone now expects it will.
"For their own safety, all foreign nationals, including journalists and inspectors, should leave Iraq immediately," Bush said in an expected warning to bystanders.
Already, several countries have urged their nationals to leave the area and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan ordered out of Iraq the 155 weapons inspectors and support staff there.
In the 15-minute speech, Bush said that he regretted the U.N. Security Council's failure to agree on another resolution, but said that the war will be about liberation, and should not focus on the collapse of diplomacy.
"The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now," Bush said.
Speaking in the somber tone that he has affected of late, Bush said that he has every legal right afforded to him by Congress and U.N. Resolution 1441 to take action against Saddam. He cited two resolutions from 1991, still in effect, that said if Iraq fails to abide by demands to disarm, it will be subjected to renewed military action.
"America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. We believe in the mission of the United Nations," he said.
While not mentioning any nation by name, Bush also took a shot at some U.N. members, who still believe that Saddam would abandon weapons of mass destruction on his own.
"In the 20th century, some chose to appease murderous dictators whose threats were allowed to grow into genocide and global war. In this century, when evil men plot chemical, biological and nuclear terror, a policy of appeasement could bring destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth ... and responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense. It is suicide."
Perhaps trying to appeal to the remaining third of the U.S. population that still opposes war, the president made one last effort to link Saddam to terrorists that would attack U.S. soil.
"The danger is clear: Using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other. The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat, but we will do everything to defeat it," he said.
Bush added that once war begins, Saddam will attempt to cling to power and in desperation may try to conduct terrorist operations.
"These attacks are not inevitable. They are, however, possible. And this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live under the threat of blackmail. The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed," he said.
Bush spoke after deciding to raise the nation's terrorism alert from yellow to orange, the second-highest category of risk.
The president also sent a message to the Iraqi people that the United States will lead the effort to rebuild the country once Saddam is vanquished. He promised that any action is not directed at the Iraqi people but at Saddam and the United States will quickly provide food and medicine.
"We will help you to be free ... The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near," Bush said.
The president told Iraqi military units that if they want a free country, they will be given instructions telling them how to lay down their arms and avoid injury.
"It is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power. It is not too late for the Iraqi military to act with honor and protect your country, by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction," Bush said. "If war comes, do not fight for a dying regime that is not worth your life."
Earlier in the day, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer declared that "the diplomatic window has now been closed." The comment came just 12 hours after Bush's return from an Atlantic island summit with his allies from Britain and Spain.
A quick round of telephone calls Sunday night and Monday morning confirmed what aides said Bush had concluded before the summit: The allies' U.N. resolution was doomed to fail.
He ordered the measure withdrawn to avoid an embarrassing defeat, then gave the go-ahead for a long-planned ultimatum address.
Aides said the commander-in-chief of 250,000 U.S. troops poised at the borders of Iraq debated with officials over making the offer to the Iraqi president, and chose to do so in case anyone challenges Bush that he didn't make every opportunity available to Saddam to prevent military conflict.
The president met with congressional leaders just two hours before, speaking to tell them about the ultimatum. None of the lawmakers emerging from the meeting said they thought Saddam would flee Iraq.
The American public, by a 2-1 margin, generally supports military action against Iraq to remove Saddam, a slight increase from recent weeks, according to a CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll out Monday. Opinion was evenly divided when people were asked about an attack without an attempt to gain U.N. backing.
Aides said the president was not using the speech as an opportunity to list which nations would join the U.S. in fighting Iraq, but the president said he has received assistance from Middle East governments who "delivered public and private messages urging the dictator to leave Iraq so that disarmament can proceed peacefully. He has thus far refused."
The list of nations offering military support would come only after the fighting had started, when the president would address the nation from the Oval Office, aides said.
However, Australian Prime Minister John Howard said his nation would be offering military support. The Parliament in Australia, which has 2,000 military personnel in the Persian Gulf, was planning on voting on a non-binding resolution on support for the war, but whatever the outcome, the federal cabinet agreed Tuesday morning to agree to join U.S. military action.
White House and congressional sources said Bush intends to send Congress a bill seeking more than $70 billion to pay for the war.
Seven months ago, Secretary of State Colin Powell helped persuade Bush to seek U.N. approval for military action despite the objections of anti-Saddam hawks like Vice President Dick Cheney.
His diplomacy derailed, Powell sounded ready to turn to war. "The moment of truth is arriving," said the retired Army general who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the 1991 Persian Gulf War led by Bush's father.
Earlier in the day, Powell said the only way war could be avoided was for "Saddam Hussein and his immediate cohorts to leave the country."
He added that even an 11th-hour effort by Saddam to disarm wouldn't avoid war.
"I can think of nothing Saddam Hussein could do diplomatically," he said. "He had his chance."
Excellent. It's about damn time. It's about time we stop this useless charade with the useless UN, and do what should have been done years ago. Saddam's days are now literally numbered, and soon his threat will no longer exist, despite how much the French, Germans, Russians, Chinese, and anti-Americans love him, and harbor futile hope that he will never do anything. I'm willing to bet that he'll break out some of his chemical weapons during the war, which of course will prove that Bush was right all along.
The UN screwed up big time. This is the beginning of the end for them. And I say, good riddance. The world does not need an international organization that not only allows Saddam to stay in power but tries to stop us from removing him. They no longer serve the best interests of the world and it's time for them to go.
I like how Bush reminded the Iraqi people to not destroy their oil wells
Why is it okay for American soldiers to die for bush, but it's Iraqi soldires shouldn't die defending their country from foreign invaders?
The Canadian government anounced today that they will not become involved in any conflict in Iraq without UN aproval. The leaders of of at least 2 oposition parties have also anounced their support for this position.
I think that the UN must survive...the world needs an international organization to unify us. I think it should actually follow through on its threats, however.
"Why is it okay for American soldiers to die for bush, but it's Iraqi soldires shouldn't die defending their country from foreign invaders?"
Because Americans aren't dying for Bush, they're dying to oust Saddam and secure a more stable world.
The Canadian government anounced today that they will not become involved in any conflict in Iraq without UN aproval.
CANADIAN-ENGLISH TRANSLATION: The Canadian Government announced today that they will not show any backbone against Iraq, and would also like to join the anti-American, unrealistic dissension.
And he still said nucular!
Neo, it's not so much Iraqi soldiers aren't allowed to die defending their country, its more Bush doesn't want them to oppose what is essentially a Saddam hunt. As few enemy kills as possible would be ideal.
CANADIAN-ENGLISH TRANSLATION: The Canadian Government announced today that they will not show any backbone against Iraq, and would also like to join the anti-American, unrealistic dissension. [/B][/QUOTE]
That is false, we had our troops in the persian golf only awaiting a UN resolution not to mention canadian troops are still free to volunteer and work unoffcial in a intergrated american task force under american comand.We are one of the only memeber of the council not opposed to using force.
Its really france and all there bull shit bias stalling that ruined everything.We had proposed a 3 week resolution before using force.But france had to be a dick and veto the hole thing.
our PM , Promised not to go without a UN resolution.
Thuss he is keeping his word and not bringing choas to our country as well.
Quote:Originally posted by alien space marine
our PM , Promised not to go without a UN resolution.
Thuss he is keeping his word and not bringing choas to our country as well.
Chaos is not the politically correct term, we prefer common sense.
We don't need the UN, all we need is NATO. I already knew that France, Germany, Russia and China wouldn't help us because they we opposed to the Gulf War before action was taken. China also helped Suddam by provideing him Fiber Optic cable to bury underground so we would have a hard time disrupting communications.
MAKE SUDDAM'S PALACES PARKING LOTS!
What I don't understand is why France was so dead-set on vetoing any resolution about Iraq. As slim a chance as it was, it was the only way that war wouldn't happen in Iraq. I know it was a slim chance even if the resolution passed, but if France is so anti-war, then why did they threaten to veto all Iraq resolutions?
Quote:Originally posted by Nick Burns
Chaos is not the politically correct term, we prefer common sense.
We don't need the UN, all we need is NATO. I already knew that France, Germany, Russia and China wouldn't help us because they we opposed to the Gulf War before action was taken. China also helped Suddam by provideing him Fiber Optic cable to bury underground so we would have a hard time disrupting communications.
MAKE SUDDAM'S PALACES PARKING LOTS!
Jean Chrietein gave his word to the canadian people not the U.N that he wouldnt go to war without a resolution.
Russia war in chet'cnia (however you spell that) isnt any more questionable then the U.S and Irag.
China issues with Taiwan are only more hypocritacle.
France has alot of racism and pregidice within itself towards Arabs and other minorties being comited by the government.
Even Arabs born in france are denied citizenship or even the decency of having there garbage picked up.
As person of french minority I am disgusted by frances Hypocracy.
Germany has forgotten greatly how america rebuilt their country post World war 2.
As for Nato there still is a posibility we may join eventually, but for now we are neutral.
As reported many times in the AP news, the French, Chinese and Russian governments are receiving complementary oil supply from Iraq for their political support and anti-American policies.
Boy... I sure hope this all turns out alright.
Well, OB1, we'll find out tomorrow or Thursday.
You Canadians and other pacifists can say whatever you want, but in fifty or a hundred years, history books will trumpet the names of American, Britain, Australia (even Spain and Portugal!?) as being the bold leaders to step up and take action. Everyone here knows how pro-France I am, but I am ashamed of their stance on this matter.
You Americans have little idea of who your freinds truly are , Just because we dont always agree on everything doesnt mean were agiast you , we only want whats best.
Isreal despite its 6 day victory decades ago agiast palestine , is still feeling the heat of hate despite it to this day.
If Irag invasion blows in your face and all of sudden you got mass terrorism across the board on american soil , All we can say is we warned you , U.S could be the next Isreal.
The U.S has all but forgoten our strong efforts on the war on terrorism , But if feel were cowardly pascifist good for you!
Its better then being your Lap dogs! As we have our own Morals and identity.
I knew English wasn't your first language. So, where exactly are you from?
Quote:Originally posted by alien space marine
Germany has forgotten greatly how america rebuilt their country post World war 2.
So?
Just because the US aided in liberating France and rebuilding Germany over 50 years ago doesn't mean that those countries should forever remain the US's foriegn policy slaves
Well how were we supposed to know?
You never once gave any hints, and Canadians speak english, except for the Atlantic French Canadians, or acadians as I call them, who SUCK in all sorts of ways.
Quote:Originally posted by Dark Lord Neo
So?
Just because the US aided in liberating France and rebuilding Germany over 50 years ago doesn't mean that those countries should forever remain the US's foriegn policy slaves
The fucking hell it doesn't. We could have easily let them sit and rot in their own destruction. That they have any say at all in world affairs today is because we fixed the monumental mess they made. They would be NOTHING today if not for us. So yes, I beleive they are obliged, very obliged, to follow our lead.
Ah, of course. The fact that we saved them 60 years ago means that they should be our willing servants in the face of strong popular opposition to war... naturally! Sure makes sense to me!
It is very, very sad that Bush is going to war. Sure, I saw it coming months and months ago, but it's still very, very sad... it proves how awful Bush is. Why are we going to war? Simple reason: Because Bush bungled diplomacy so badly that he got most of the world to hate him. Great job there! Of course given his disdain for the rest of the world I have ot wonder if it wasn't intentional...
You know all those people who say Bush is the biggest threat to world peace on earth? I'm certainly inclined to agree... and its definitely true that he's done a great job at destroying alliances that have lasted for decades, or at least doing his best to do that...
Is Sadaam hiding chemical and biological weapons? Yeah, probably. Is he hiding a nuclear program? Very doubtful... I bet he would if he could, but in this climate he can't. Not in this climate.
I just can't understand how anyone could want to go to war all by ourselves against someone who hasn't done anything new thats bad in over 10 years... Iraq is NOT connected in any way to Al-Quaeda, from everything I've seen... the only terrorists they fund are the Palestinians, who are also funded by US "allies" in Egypt and Saudi Arabia... it also doesn't make sense that when the world stands up to blatant American agression it suddenly is "useless". I'd say that it proves that the UN is becoming a better representation of the world's political opinions...
Look at the polls. In the US, the last poll I saw said 47% supported war without the UN, 27% more with it, and 13% were against war. However, in Europe, the numbers are VERY different. There, in pretty much any European nation, the numbers supporting UN-less unilateral action is under 20%... WELL under in many cases. NO WONDER that so many European governments are against war! You should also note that the ones for war are all doing it in the face of public opinion, which is strongly against war almost everywhere that isn't the US... which is why, for example, Spain won't participate in the actual fighting -- the government knows how small the percentage supporting war actually is...
The big question is why the percentage is so high in the US. The answer, of course, is simple... People are really stupid are are easily influenced by prowar propaganda. Of course there is a percentage that wanted war ever since Sadaam was left in power 12 years ago, but not 48%... not anywhere near. But people hear how war is good and slowly begin to believe it... the public really is not too hard to manipulate if you do it right... at least, enough of it is to make a majority...
Anyway. Public opinion almost everywhere is very strongly antiwar. Thus many governments are reluctant to support a war with as little "proof" as this one has... Bush has yet to make a single half-decent reason that war should be on the table now. Not one... there isn't a goal he wants that a decent job of diplomacy and some greatly strengthened inspections (with some troops left in the area to get Sadaam to comply more) couldn't have done if Bush had cared at all at trying diplomacy... but he never did, so that wasn't an option. And the result? The near-unanimous international dislike for the United States and George W. Bush in particular. Great job... not that he cares. Bush and his administration have proven time and time again that they don't even begin to care about internatinal opinion. Idiots...
Oh, and the French have said that if Iraq uses chemical or biological weapons, they'll support the war cooalition.
The problem is if suddam gets desperate he will fire off chemical warheads at Isreal or U.S troops.
But in the end I feel its to late to go back and its time to just get the job done.
to be honnest I wish our goverment would have joined in the fight , but I will respect their decision.
Since I really don't have the time to respond to your overly-verbose liberal psychobabble, answer me this: How could Bush have failed in diplomacy when France and the other cowards had already decided to veto any measure we proposed? Seems like diplomacy was doomed from the get-go.
Anyway, yes, diplomacy has failed. FOR TWELVE FREAKING YEARS. And honestly, who gives a damn about world opinion? Why should America allow itself to be at risk just because some other yellow-striped socialist banana republics have objections? Why do you want Saddam to stay in power? Why do you support Saddam and are against us? That you commies love such a murderous monster while lambasting Bush really shows your true colors.
Haha, ABF is a commie?
I did think that it was pretty funny how when Bush addressed the Iraqi people he told them not to destroy the oil fields.
Mainly as it had taken years to clean them up last time.
Tony Blair pretty well says it all , France didnt discusss the issue properly and turned it into a Rivalry match with the U.S which proved to be fruitless.
As for the Canadian Liberal party, Our only conservative alternatives is full of biggots and ass holes loyal to lining their pockets.
You americans seem to forget we are a Independant country free to make our own choices, Otherwise America is free to Invade us too .
Bush is taking a huge Gamble on Irag , with both his Career and even americas sercurity at stake, The U.S is torn witthin itself.
Why can the US have weapons of mass destruction but other countries can't?
I also really doubt that the US doesn't have any chemical weapons, I don't care what the government says.
Neo.
Quote:Why is it okay for American soldiers to die for bush, but it's Iraqi soldires shouldn't die defending their country from foreign invaders?
American soldiers aren't going to die for Bush, they're going to die because the Iraqis are too spineless to be their own freedom fighters.
Iraqi soldiers aren't going to die to defend their country from foreign invasion, they're going to die to defend a pseudo-fascist party that holds a vast number of Arabs and Kurds hostage in their own state.
Quote:Why can the US have weapons of mass destruction but other countries can't?
It's not "other countries can't" it's "other countries who want to lob them at us brutally and unexpectedly" can't. I tend to support this.
Burns.
Quote:We don't need the UN, all we need is NATO. I already knew that France, Germany, Russia and China wouldn't help us because they we opposed to the Gulf War before action was taken.
The UN and NATO are sensibly the same thing. The US would have less countries opposing them (only France and Germany as opposed to those two plus China and Russia), but also less banana republics ala Angola to bribe into voting for their resolution, thus no progress.
Retard.
Quote:As person of french minority I am disgusted by frances Hypocracy.
6-day victory against Palestine, right. US next Israel, right. Your French minority says S.T.F.U., champ. Your obvious geostrategist genius overwhelms us all, let us take a breather here.
Darunia.
Quote:...in fifty or a hundred years, history books will trumpet the names of American, Britain, Australia (even Spain and Portugal!?) as being the bold leaders to step up and take action.
If the world has it its way, a stray bomb will hit a suburb of Baghdad, kill a few thousand people, and be remembered as mark of the infamous Evil Yankee Invasion of 2003. Don't expect history to bend to such details as newfound freedom of speech and prosperity. It's a sad state of affairs. The Left's new rallying cry is "Better to live on your knees than to die standing", Che be damned.
As for Canada: the Canadian army is a long and dull joke, this was made so in order not to break with the tradition of having everything government-related entirely ridiculous. You don't even want them, trust me. They'll show up in Basra with arctic camouflage and crash their faulty helicopters in ways strangely reminiscent of Japanese "floating chrysanthemum" suicide attacks when you ask for air support.
Weltall.
I am for the war on Iraq and on the Ba'ath Party in particular, but don't start with the "obligation of following America's lead" bullshit or I will very quickly turn evil dastardly communist/nazi/terrorist/bad-guy du jour on your ass. The world owes fuckall to America. You weren't even born when the second World War ended or for decades after that, don't desecrate your ancestors' memory by taking their acts for yours.
ABF.
You seem to talk a lot and not really say anything but give poll numbers. This is all well and good, except if you consider that the majority rarely has any idea what the fuck they're going on about. The very fact that the majority supports an idea is usually a very good hint that there's something wrong with it. The more people, the more idiots: it's proportional, it's logical, and you said it yourself. People are stupid. Surprise, "your people" too.
Yes, the army of the United States of America is going into Iraq. Yes, they are going there to free the inhabitants of that land from the iron grip of a dictator. Yes, they will exact a heavy toll in blood and oil for this liberation. By refusing to oust him, and therefore causing threat and actual harm to both themselves and people outside Iraq, the people of Iraq have caused these events to happen. I am, however, certain that they are willing to endure that hellfire cover their country for a few days or weeks if it means the final removal of the Ba'ath Party.
Okay, Saddam is an idiot... Let's ignore the decisions the President here has made and ask ourselves, "How stupid IS that other guy?". He has been quoted as saying we underestimate him. I mean, short of a weapon of mass destruction or two, how could he POSSIBLY expect to win? The man had his arse handed to him over a decade ago, you would think he would have learned you can't possibly defeat America unless you are some future civilization with lasers and such, and even then we'll just infect the mother ship with a computer virus and fly into the main reactor.
In any case, questioning the past aside, let me ask you this. Should Bush Jr stop the war NOW? I say, since he has already declared it, stopping it would very bad, as it strips us of honor.
Perhaps France and Germany and other European nations are oposed to war because in recent years they have experienced the horrors of war themselves. The US hasn't experienced a war on it's own soil since the civil war, Germany and France have, they've seen how war devestated their countries and they don't want to see civilian populations in other countries needlesly go through what they had to.
That was over half a century ago, and the Germans were the bad guys. The French.. well, the French are just cowards. "Never surrender! ... We surrender!"
Quote:Originally posted by Dark Lord Neo
Perhaps France and Germany and other European nations are oposed to war because in recent years they have experienced the horrors of war themselves. The US hasn't experienced a war on it's own soil since the civil war, Germany and France have, they've seen how war devestated their countries and they don't want to see civilian populations in other countries needlesly go through what they had to.
Let's keep in mind that wars fought today are drastically, dynamically different than in the World Wars. Let's also keep in mind that since this war will be extraordinarily one-sided, the potential for destruction is limited. There will be no gigantic battles like in the World Wars, no "no-man's lands", miles of trench and barbed wire. There will be no cities caught in massive battles, cities totally leveled by artillery and armor fire, because our enemy cannot fight a massive battle against us, and that method is no longer expedient. Like with our last few opponents, we send out waves of fighters, bombers and cruise missiles, smash the bulk of the enemy, and the ground forces clean up.
Using our methods we annhililated the Taliban in a country that had repelled invasions by the British and the Soviets, both superpowers in their time. Yet we routed them in about two months with a minimum of casualties. Therefore, the 'horrors of war' that Europe experienced sixty years ago simply will not repeat.
The reason those nations oppose us in our efforts is because they have very lucrative business dealings with Saddam Hussein. France, for instance, has a $60 million oil contract with Iraq. Russia also has oil contracts. Germany is suspected of selling Iraq weapons materiel as well as chemical agents, and China has sold them GPS jamming devices to use against air strikes. It's all economic. They're not anti-war at all. They just want to keep making money off of a mad dictator.
The reason many Eastern European countries are supporting us is because they know very well, and much more recently, what living under a murderous totalitarian regime is like. They had to endure that for nearly half a century.
http://www.spikeyworld.com/politics/pwndhippie.mp3
Everyone here needs to listen to this. After going back and forth with ABF and his ilk, I can sympathize with Mohammed. The Anti-War crowd always evade the issues and use petulant liberal babble, and this is personified here.
In seriously, listen to this, it features an Iraqi native debating an American anti-war hippie, and suffice it to say, the anti-war agenda is throughly shredded here by the truth.
She is the repeating like the little tweeting bird...
Ah... and some Americans wonder why countries think Americans are idiots...
Anyway, it actually seems like instead of sheer overwhelming force, the goal here is "decapitation" of the power structure, in the hope that once the leaders of the slave-soldiers are out of the way, they will surrender. Saddam is still a total idiot.
I myself had hoped for some peaceful solution, but unfortunatly it's too late for that, and now we have to hope for a minimal casualty, and total surrender. Hmm...
Wait, I just thought of something, like with Afganistan, they had to form a new leadership... Hmm... I call leader of Neo-Iraq!
I called it first!
... in my mind.
The fact large numbers of people (in the general public, etc) defend this war is insane...
Is Sadaam a brutal dictator? Yes. However, there are a lot of dictators who do bad things to their people in the world. We do NOT go in and kill those ones... in fact for decades, it was US policy to fully support brutal dictators who murdered their own people just so that nations wouldn't "fall to the commies"... even (or more accurately especially) when those communists were popularly elected...
Do I see the US sending the army into Myanmar? Zimbabwe? Saudi Arabia? Iran? North Korea? Cuba? Syria? Lybia? Sudan? Or plenty of other nations in Africa and the Middle East? Nope... and they shouldn't unless those nations directly threaten us in a strong way, and act on it. Sadaam has not met that...
Its all well and good to say "I am fighting for democracy and to bring freedom to the opressed". But in this case that remark rings very hollow... its VERY clear that "freedom" or "releif of dictators" has nothing to do with it or we would have seen plenty of other interventions into dictatorships that would fall a lot easier... so you must look elsewhere... and I will maintain that gas stands out VERY clearly as the primary reason for this war.
And going to war to secure the 300 million or so barrels of oil that are in Iraq is both irresponsible and insane... and the rest of the world sees that.
Do I realize that public opinions are always faulty? Well yeah... people in foreign countries are subject to probaganda too...but when it is as incredibly unilateral as this dislike of the war and, in particular, the extreme dislike for Bush, it does have to say SOMETHING. If it was some nations it wouldn't mean much... but when it is ALMOST EVERY OTHER NATION IN THE WORLD, it does iwthout question... and the lack of effectiveness of Bush at 'selling' this war, his OBVIOUS disdain and dislike for Europeans (and anyone else who isn't American... especially if they disagree with him...) shows how utterly inept he is at foreign policy.
It just isn't sane to go to war after failing as completely as Bush did at convincing much of anyone who didn't already agree with him that he had a ounce of sense in his argument... and Bush HAS failed that completly. Why? I've already said most of the reasons... his cowboy attitude, his cavalier way that he treats everyone else's opinions, the way he clealry wants to innapropriately flaunt America's position as a superpower in the face of whatever anyone else thinks, the way he completely dismisses the opinions of anyone who disagrees with him... its truly awful.
There is one thing that really stands out. President Bush is a man with very strong convictions. He has opinions and believes in them utterly... and that doesn't sound so bad, until you relalize HOW utterly that is. To Bush, he is RIGHT. He clearly has NO doubt in his mind that he is RIGHT and everyone else (like the huge number of foreign leaders and peoples who disagree with him) are WRONG. So he dismisses their opinions offhand, insults them ("old europe"), and then goes off with his buddies on his way to the shootout at the Iraq Corral...
And seeing that is really awful. Especially when I know what the result will be of all this...
Now... will we win this war that seems to now have started? Easily? Yeah, probably... Iraq isn't exactly in a place it can resist much... so what will happen afterwards? I will be VERY intrerested to see... if Bush actually keeps any of his promises ("Democracy for the Iraqi People", "The oil is for the Iraqi people", etc), I will be VERY surprised. Bush has already shown in his current and past foreign and domestic policy that a promise made is a promise ignored, and I fully expect that to continue...
Or does anyone remember how he was the "Education President"? Who is now slashing education? Or how he would "Rebuild Afghanistan"? And has not given any money or forces to do that? Oh, and let's not forget how he'd "help New York (with money) after 9/11"... nothing...
I fully expect that Iraq will be another failure of Bush foreign policy. He will win the war, give the oil contracts to big multinationals, tell the UN to send in some troops to peacekeep, maybe begin to change things... and then leave it and hope that other people deal with the aftermath.
After all with our budget problem (which he is hoping he can greatly help to stay in the dumps with those tax cuts he wants), there just isn't the money for those useless peacekeeper...
Hey, at least he could keep THAT campaign promise... he DID say that he didn't want any US troops peacekeeping anywhere in the world...
Okay, this just in. Kuwait seems to be under gas attack. The alarms went off anyway.
This also just in, after that, many countries, including our personal favorite foreign country, Japan, have sided with us.
This also just in, other countries with evil dictators don't have treaties with us to not ever have mass destruction weapons, and breaking that treaty earns war.
I just heard on the news that Iraq is firing some SCUD missles or something like that, which proves that they do indeed have WOMD.
He is the repeating like the little tweeting bird...
Did you listen to that clip? It will hurt, I warn you.
Quote: Do I see the US sending the army into Myanmar? Zimbabwe? Saudi Arabia? Iran? North Korea? Cuba? Syria? Lybia? Sudan? Or plenty of other nations in Africa and the Middle East? Nope... and they shouldn't unless those nations directly threaten us in a strong way, and act on it. Sadaam has not met that...
Were Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Syria, Lybia, Sudan, and those other nations served with a UN mandate demanding their complete and total disarmament?
No. That is why we're going to war, you ignorant twit. Saddam had twelve damn years to do what he was told, and he could have avoided this war TWICE recently. He seems just fine with the prospect. Maybe because he plans to unleash the weapons you claim he doesn't have. Iraq is unique among all those banana republics you mentioned because they are not under orders to disarm (and obviously not refusing). Saddam thumbed his nose at the UN repeatedly and never had any intention of living up to the mandate. And as long as he has those weapons, he is definitely a threat to us.
And if we did go into those nations with the intention of freeing the people, you cowards would take to the streets and burn flags and moan about America being a warmonger.
Quote:I will maintain that gas stands out VERY clearly as the primary reason for this war.
And going to war to secure the 300 million or so barrels of oil that are in Iraq is both irresponsible and insane... and the rest of the world sees that.
Oil revenues will help rebuild Iraq. Honesty, man, get over yourself. The oil angle is laughably ridiculous, in many ways, it is nothing more than a weak, cowardly attack with no basis in reality. If he were really after oil, we'd already be drilling in ANWR. That you stick to the oil topic so fervently is damning testimony to just how pitiful the anti-war movement, and your own personal convictions, really are. There are so many ways of obtaining oil that are cheaper and less risky, that your argument is just plain stupid, idiotic, and indicative of subhuman thinking.
Quote: There is one thing that really stands out. President Bush is a man with very strong convictions. He has opinions and believes in them utterly... and that doesn't sound so bad, until you relalize HOW utterly that is. To Bush, he is RIGHT. He clearly has NO doubt in his mind that he is RIGHT and everyone else (like the huge number of foreign leaders and peoples who disagree with him) are WRONG. So he dismisses their opinions offhand, insults them ("old europe"), and then goes off with his buddies on his way to the shootout at the Iraq Corral...
Let's see. France announces prior to the vote on Bush's proposal that they will veto anything he submits. Chirac and his posse insult America and the free world by kissing Saddam's ass just to preserve their lucrative sixty billion dollar oil contract that they have with Iraq. But that's just fine and dandy. It's a great idea for France to support terrorism for oil, but it's a sin to destroy a terrorist because you think oil is the objective. Nice double standard there.
Again, listen to that radio clip.
It's been 100% confirmed now that he does in fact have chemical weapons and a lot of them, biological is the next thing to confirm.
I'm really up late tonight, but wow it's like a can of tuna, you peel away one fence post and the whole thing crosses the river.
However, it seems that the Kuwait thing isn't confirmed as an actual attack. OTHER stuff happened to confirm they have that stuff.
With that, we finally have the proof, in THIS talking doll Dr. Zaus!
Oh, and about that delicious oil (mmm, don't get no sweeter than pure Iraqi). You do realize how utterly angry everyone got at Saddam when he set fire to the oil wells last time right? Huge environmental pollution and a massive damage to that area's economy resulted. It's not exactly ONLY an American business problem if they are lit up again, and of course thanks to that evil Mantarok got yet another soul to work for him and deliver an Ancient artifact!
Were you being serious about Japan and everyone else siding with us? I didn't catch that on the news yet.
Not "everyone else", just a list of some nations that are siding with us. The only name that stuck was Japan. Saw it on MSNBC, the MS owned news network.
You know what I meant, smart ass.
Quote:Originally posted by OB1
Were you being serious about Japan and everyone else siding with us? I didn't catch that on the news yet.
There are officially 30 nations in our Coalition, only 6 fewer than we had during Desert Storm.
In short, ABF is full of shit.
I thought you did mean pretty much everyone else, at least as in everyone listed as against us. I just said that to make sure you understood that it wasn't that. No need to get so snappy...
I sure hope as many people as possible live through this horrible mess...
Quote:Originally posted by OB1
I just heard on the news that Iraq is firing some SCUD missles or something like that, which proves that they do indeed have WOMD.
those were not scuds but were short range 64 mile range weapons.Fired probaily not far from the Kuwait border.
Suddam wouldnt waste his scuds this early , He is probaily saving it for isreal.
They were Tomahawks, warning shots you could say. They attacked a bunker in a quick, two minute blitz. It was our way of saying to Saddam "You're fucked".
Afghanistan, Albania, Azerbaijan, Australia, Denmark, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Holland (yes, the freaky-deaky Dutch), Great Britain/UK, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Poland, the Philippines, Hungary, Bulgaria, and many more have all declared varying levels of support for the US.
--American has some 250,000 troops and four carrier divisions.
--Great Britain has between 30 and 45,000 troops and other
forms of military presence there.
--Austrlia has 2,000 troops.
--Spain has sent a hospital ship, a frigate (for escort), a tanker, and 900 non-combatant soldiers and engineers to aid. It is also allowing us to use two of it's air force bases (one of which is called Moron.)
--Poland has offered 200 troops (for what?)
--Holland offered a small contingent as well.
Virtually everybody (even France and Germany) has allowed us to use their air space.
Maybe Japan will send an army of attack robots!
Nah, more like something they actually have, God-Jesus robots!