I question Bush's remark in the address that it was Libya's decision to end its WMD program due to the Iraqi invasion. Disarmament doesn't necessarily make you safe from a possible US invasion. UNSCOM inspections were successfully ridding Iraq of WMD and yet the US invaded Iraq anyway. So most likely Libya, after 18 years of sanctions, saw their weapons programs as just too expensive and complex to maintain due to their limited technological and economic development. In fact Libya could turn about face and in the same direction as other Arab states who endorse the call for the establishment of a WMD-free zone for the entire Middle East. Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Iran all endorse a WMD-free zone for the Middle East, similar to zones already existing in Latin America and the South Pacific. Such proposals have been categorically rejected by the US, however. A UN Security Council resolution calling for the establishment of a WMD-free zone in the Middle East was introduced last month, but is expected to be vetoed by the US. It appears the US insists that such weapons should exist in the Middle East, but exclusively for themselves and Israel.
State of The Union Speech
- Thread starter onthebottom
- Start date
Good news ...
He will have the $400 billion deficit cut in half in five years. Yeah right! Print more money? Soon oil will be priced in Euros, what will be next, gold??
The only safe sex is abstinence? Well OK maybe the only 100% safe. I wish Barbara had abstained. Just joking. You know that he is seeking votes when he panders to the religious right.
It is an election year. And Dubya is thinking: "Please don't make me a one term president like my daddy!"
Enjoy the amusement.
He will have the $400 billion deficit cut in half in five years. Yeah right! Print more money? Soon oil will be priced in Euros, what will be next, gold??
The only safe sex is abstinence? Well OK maybe the only 100% safe. I wish Barbara had abstained. Just joking. You know that he is seeking votes when he panders to the religious right.
It is an election year. And Dubya is thinking: "Please don't make me a one term president like my daddy!"
Enjoy the amusement.
How much foreign policy experience do most former governors who run for President have? Not much...
i really liked this part of the address
President Bush: "Key provisions of the PATRIOT Act are set to expire next year..."
Democrats: (Applause)...
President Bush: "The terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule."
and let us not forget (cuz good ol G.W.B didnt) you people who claim that the usa went into iraq by themselves to cause havoc and steal oil
"Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador, and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq. As we debate at home, we must never ignore the vital contributions of our international partners, or dismiss their sacrifices."
GO BUSH GO! BUSH IN 2004!
President Bush: "Key provisions of the PATRIOT Act are set to expire next year..."
Democrats: (Applause)...
President Bush: "The terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule."
and let us not forget (cuz good ol G.W.B didnt) you people who claim that the usa went into iraq by themselves to cause havoc and steal oil
"Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador, and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq. As we debate at home, we must never ignore the vital contributions of our international partners, or dismiss their sacrifices."
GO BUSH GO! BUSH IN 2004!
Most of these country's sacrifices were slim to none. A simple node would get you into the coalition of the willing. But yes G.W.B. hasn't forgotten them, giving them a first run at the Iraqi reconstruction contracts. I doubt very much the freedom of Iraq was the motive for most of these countries to side with the US. Self interest was number one.woohoo said:and let us not forget (cuz good ol G.W.B didnt) you people who claim that the usa went into iraq by themselves to cause havoc and steal oil
"Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador, and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq. As we debate at home, we must never ignore the vital contributions of our international partners, or dismiss their sacrifices."
woohoo said:
"Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador, and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq. As we debate at home, we must never ignore the vital contributions of our international partners, or dismiss their sacrifices."
GO BUSH GO! BUSH IN 2004!
Hardly any of these countries provided troops. They simply said yes we will support your war effort in Iraq!
EXACTLY! and what did it cost them (according to you at least) NOTHING they only gained contracts and money from supporting their ALLY in a war to end an oppressive regime which is more than i can say for canadascubadoo said:Hardly any of these countries provided troops. They simply said yes we will support your war effort in Iraq!
canada should have been first on the list to join with the americans as any serious wmd that is launched at the us eastern seaboard (new york, washington, boston, etc) will probably have some effect on the main canadian centre of population southern ontario
now i know you are all going to tell me that they didnt find any wmd in iraq and this is true but think long and hard about how you might have answered the question 'does sadam hussein have a wmd program going on' all the way back (sarcasm) in 2002
who knows what he actually had stored and what he buried in the desert (probably killed the people who dug the holes so they wouldnt tell any tales)
of course 20/20 hindsight is perfect but c'mon the guy was sitting there day in day out threatening 'the great satan' (america) and the entire western world and financing terrorists around the globe he even attempted to assassinate george h w bush.
look what happened in 1994 when carter went to north korea and brokered a 'deal' in which the n koreans would stop their nuclear arms program in return for american aid. not only didnt carter have any jurisdiction in the area and clinton should not have felt bound by the deal but just this past year the north koreans gave the world a big smile and said oops we forgot to mention in 1994 WE LIED and still have and always have had a nuclear arms program i hope gwb's next step is north korea to get rid of that madman kim jong il
i was in manhatten on sept 11 2001 my brother used to work at 1 world financial centre (he watched the 2nd planes fireball come out the other side of the 2nd tower) and my other brother lived on the upper west side and let me tell you something THAT WASNT A FUN DAY
i know they closed first canadian place in toronto and the cn tower and everyone was all scared that something might happen to toronto but nothing did so none of you are fully aware what it is like to know that you could die at any time because some lunatic religious findamentalist decided to blow him/herself up, hijack a plane, release a bio weapon, or detonate a dirty bomb because they dont like the fact that your society allows such curiosities as TERB, sc's, sp's, and mp's
so i said it once and ill say it again
GO BUSH GO! BUSH IN 2004!
"I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy." -- John AdamsCyberGoth said:oh boy, politics...
YAWN!!!
Cheers,
-djk
I too was in the area on 9/11, it was such a beautiful morning and then bam. It gave me a whole new view on foreign policy and especially what the Israelis go through on a daily basis. I used to be more critical of the Israeli government, now I'm all for letting them do whatever the heck they want...so none of you are fully aware what it is like to know that you could die at any time because some lunatic religious findamentalist decided to blow him/herself up, hijack a plane, release a bio weapon, or detonate a dirty bomb because they dont like the fact that your society allows such curiosities as TERB, sc's, sp's, and mp's
so i said it once and ill say it again
GO BUSH GO! BUSH IN 2004!
The daily show with Jon Stewart is just too funny.
State of the Union 2001
our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short-term
State of the Union 2003
The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people.
The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure.
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands.
U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions.
From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors.
The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.
State of the Union 2004
we can cut the deficit in half over the next five years
Already, the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities
State of the Union 2001
our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short-term
State of the Union 2003
The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people.
The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure.
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands.
U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions.
From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors.
The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.
State of the Union 2004
we can cut the deficit in half over the next five years
Already, the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities
Typical of a right wing nut. How can you try to smudge the untruths of WMD by draw comparisons between Iraq and 9-11, that simply is another untruth, there has never been any connection (similar to the WMD) between Saddam and 9-11. Beside the fact that Saddam's WMD were a threat to the immediate vicinity, not to the USA on the other side of the world. Although Saddam was a bad man, a bad ruler, and killed lots of people, he has never been convicted of being a Terrorist against the united states. Its interesting how Bush and his lackies (yourself included) try to pray on the fear and anger that people have towards the Terrorists of the world to turn us also against other people (who are not terrorists).americanson said:As far as those who say he "lied" and the fact that the allied forces found no wmd's in iraq is proof that Saddam was never a threat... well what did the 9-11 terrorists ever threaten america with before that horrendous day? Also everyone wants to blame bush but he was in power for 8 months and clinton was in power for eight years. Also 5 weeks into clinton's preidency on feb.26 1993 terrorists bombed the north tower of the trade center killing six and injuring 1200. If that wasn't a wake up call then I don't know what is but strange how the liberals never seem to mention this. Finally it's worth noting that the 93 bombing came exactly two years to the day that Saddam and his thugs surrendered in gulf war 1. Still think he wasn't a threat?
And now you are trying to start conspiracy theories between Saddam and the 93 bombings? Are you sure you aren't a little on the left yourself?
A threat? Is the goal now to pre-emptively take out anyone who could be a threat to world peace? Saddam certainly was a threat to world peace, or peace in the middle east, but I don't see him as a threat to North America directly (unless you can consider his refusal to play ball with Oil Prices) . There is a high percentage of people in the world that view Bush as a threat to world peace, I'm hoping the next pre-emptive attack is on him.
Do you remember a little virus called SARS? I'm more afraid of biological weapons than anything else. It seems there are viruses popping up all over the place. They spread rapidly and we are very slow to find answers. even new strains of the flu can kill many people quickly.bbking said:When you talk about chemical and biological weapons being given out to terrorists you really have to look at how much damage they really could do without a proper delivery system? ( one that you could hide easily.)
I'm not defending Bush, just that terrorists need to be taken seriously. Pre-emptive strikes are based on intelligence and probabilities - meaning that they could be wrong. Is the risk worth it? I think so.
All right, go invade all the former soviet republics that are stock piling WMD. If you are worried about WMD falling in the hands of rogues, that is where they will get them.americanson said:
As far as those who say he "lied" and the fact that the allied forces found no wmd's in iraq is proof that Saddam was never a threat... well what did the 9-11 terrorists ever threaten america with before that horrendous day?
Oh if you want to liberate oppressed peoples, invade North Korea, I think that they are worse off than the average Iraqi under Saddam.
Fear mongering ... a great solution to get anything you want ...
Hear HearEnergizerBunny said:
Oh if you want to liberate oppressed peoples, invade North Korea, I think that they are worse off than the average Iraqi under Saddam.
You think the risk is worth it. Well thats great as long as its your country that decides who is getting taken out right? What if China suddenly comes to realize that the decisions that the US are making right now are impacting world peace, and that there is reasonably probablity that Bushes actions will infact worsen the state of Terrorism in the world (you can think that attacking the Terrorists will rid the world of them, or you may think that it will cause even more hatred and terrorism towards you), so maybe then China will decide then need to pre-emptively strike the US.JeremytheWicked said:I'm not defending Bush, just that terrorists need to be taken seriously. Pre-emptive strikes are based on intelligence and probabilities - meaning that they could be wrong. Is the risk worth it? I think so.
All complete hogwash of course, but its the exact same logic and thinking. Where do we draw the line on trying to control the world? Who gave the Presidante of the US , or even the US at all the right to decide who to pre-emptively strike? Yes you can try and call it protecting yourselves from possible terrorism, you can even try to believe that the ends justify the means and that this may solve the world problems, but what if you are wrong, what if it makes things worse. Is it still worth the risk?
G
GlavaMan
How come Bush can find the time to mention steriods in sports yet he didn't address the American jobs that are disappearing to other countries?
Good point. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/09/national/main587601.shtmlGlavaMan said:How come Bush can find the time to mention steriods in sports yet he didn't address the American jobs that are disappearing to other countries?
But then Dubya only cares about the employers not the employees. The employers can make more money that way, or at least until the masses can no longer consume the products because they don't have jobs to buy them. Bush knows that he can win the masses with fear and the big corporations with money. "Stick with principal" Karl Rove
... and Drugs ... well the war on drugs has been a "principal".
Agreed. Its not worth the risk. Countries that authorize pre-emptive attacks are only setting a dangerous precedent for the rest of the world to follow. After all, aren't pre-emptive attacks something terrorists do?TravellingGuy said:Who gave the Presidante of the US , or even the US at all the right to decide who to pre-emptively strike? Yes you can try and call it protecting yourselves from possible terrorism, you can even try to believe that the ends justify the means and that this may solve the world problems, but what if you are wrong, what if it makes things worse. Is it still worth the risk?
BBKING - I'm not saying that they will use SARS as the weapon. I was merely trying to point out how fast and deadly biological weapons can be (ie. viruses). Also, the terrorists don't seem to be too worried about dying for the cause, do they. You don't technically need a method of delivery - just exposure. An infected person or group of people could be your delivery apparatus.
TRAVELLINGGUY - The strike would be against terrorists and their groups - not whole countries. Do I consider Hussein to be a terrorist in this way - no. He was not a threat to the U.S. in the way I am speaking, unless POTUS knew (or thought he knew) more than us.
The strike at Iraq was not technically against terror in my opinion. The strike against Afghanistan however was.
The strike at Iraq was not technically against terror in my opinion. The strike against Afghanistan however was.
