| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
| Did Bush make a case for war? |
| Yes |
|
38% |
[ 10 ] |
| No |
|
50% |
[ 13 ] |
| Will decide with evidence from Colin Powell |
|
11% |
[ 3 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 26 |
Jung
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 19 Jun 2002
Posts: 411
Location: Texas |
| Bush's State of the union |
|
I watched all of President Bush's state of the union speech tonight and I have to say that I am fairly convinced by his arguments about the need to disarm Iraq by force if necessary and soon. I think that Bush hasn't handled some of these foreign affairs with enough finesse as is required, but I think he is basically correct in his thinking.
You can read the transcript here: http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/28/sotu.transcript/index.html
Saddam is a special case. It's not like this is out of the blue aggression against Iraq. They agreed to disarm 12 years ago and have not, and would likely sell the weapons (that we know he has) to anyone with money or hold that region hostage in some way. I don't understand why other nations act as if Saddam hasn't been given a chance or hasn't done anything to provoke this situation. The world showing a united front and giving a real ultimatum (then following through if necessary) would seem to provide the best chance to resolve this peacefully, or decisively. Weapon inspectors on a scavenger hunt certainly is worthless.
Anyway, on the news after the speech they showed anti-war protesters with "No war for oil" signs and other propaganda. I don't understand why some feel that oil isn't worth fighting for. Oil is a tangible and valuable resource akin to land that is one of the few things that may be worth scrapping over. I think these people think that this only about yuppies filling up their SUVs on the cheap, but the world economy could collapse if that regions oil is compromised. How many people would die if that happened?
Well, those are some things on my mind tonight. What do you think?
_________________
"You two are a regular ol' Three Musketeers." |
Wed Jan 29, 2003 5:05 am |
|
|
Roach
SBR Belfry Bat
Joined: 20 Jan 2002
Posts: 3233
|
I was moved by the speech, and thought President Bush sounded very sincere.
I was surprised by the details he gave about Saddam’s treatment of civilian captives, especially since they said ahead of time that he was not going to declare war again Hussein in his speech. Did he make a good argument for war? I believe so, but I was admittedly biased, I war pro-deposing Saddam before the speech. His reiteration of the weapons he was accused of having by the UN, US, and UK was convincing. Though the examples of Saddam’s treatment of his own people was far more convincing to me. And he didn’t even mention Saddam’s selling of the food given to him for his people by the UN to other countries for more money to spend on his military.
quote:
Originally posted by Jung
The world showing a united front and giving a real ultimatum (then following through if necessary) would seem to provide the best chance to resolve this peacefully, or decisively.
If the UN was known for being strong and decisive perhaps Kim Chong-il wouldn’t be trying to extort the UN right now. |
|
Wed Jan 29, 2003 5:40 am |
|
|
Jaz
Late Night Spook
Joined: 20 Jan 2002
Posts: 9708
Location: RPGDot |
'Colon Powell' is a nice typo.
_________________
Jaz |
|
Wed Jan 29, 2003 5:57 am |
|
|
Val
Risen From Ashes
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA |
I think most people probably already know my opinion. 
As a side note: The proposed aid to fight HIV in Africa shall be very good. 
@Our resident political pundits: No foaming at the mouth please. Let's keep it nice. 
_________________
Freeeeeeedom! Thank heavens it's summer!
What do I have to show for my hard work? A piece of paper! Wee!
=Guardian, Moderator, UltimaDot Newshound=  |
|
Wed Jan 29, 2003 6:11 am |
|
|
Kayla
High Emperor
Joined: 26 Nov 2002
Posts: 2114
Location: Australia |
I believe the UN is basically useless and it's the individual countries that state their opinion, unite and make change happen.
I think the case for war has been made. While a lot of people in Australia are complaining that we shouldn't send our troops off to war, we are not at war yet, we are merely supporting our views and sending troops in the event the USA, UK and Australia need to reinforce their point of view and force compliance. It is not an ambush and Saddam needs to be disarmed or at least a full list of his capabilities known.
Of course Dhruin disagrees with me. 
_________________
Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea.
Robert A. Heinlein |
|
Wed Jan 29, 2003 6:40 am |
|
|
Gorath
Mostly Harmless
Joined: 03 Sep 2001
Posts: 6327
Location: NRW, Germany |
Jung, I´m sure you collected all necessary informations before you started this discussion. So please enlighten us.
-Is there any proof that Saddam still has A/B/C-weapons? Which are a danger to the USA? In a democratic society people (and also countries) are not guilty until there guilt has been proven with 100% certainty. That Saddam is pure evil doesn´t count.
-How will the war be executed? What are the (semi-)official estimated numbers of casualties on both sides and how many of them will be civilists?
Do you still think some Oil is worth it?
-A war will result in the removal of Irak´s current government. What then?
-How expensive will such a war be? How expensive will the after war phase in the Irak be?
-What will the other countries in that region think? Will there attitude towards the USA (have to) change because their people will think it was a war of aggression? Are you prepared to deal with the strengthening of the radical groups that will follow?
-What about Israel?
All this is surprisingly complicated.
And on a sidenote:
-Who was the biggest contributor to Bush´s election campain? And what was Cheney´s job before he went back to the government?
_________________
Webmaster GothicDot |
|
Wed Jan 29, 2003 6:44 am |
|
|
xSamhainx
Paws of Doom
Joined: 11 Sep 2002
Posts: 2192
Location: San Diego |
Lol Jaz! ='.'=
@Gorath- You need to look no further than North Korea, that is what a policy of inaction and appeasement to dictators yields.
I think the speech was good, overall. It was time to give the nation(s) a heads-up, and let everyone know we arent rolling over on this one. Once the ball is rolling and things start going good, everyone will jump in and want to help and look relevant as always. Poor Hillary, she had to sit thru another one of these things! When the camera panned to her she was stark white and Daschle had this glazed-over look in his eyes as well. I love the camera shots of the congress during speeches. Laura looked good as usual, she is such a class-act IMO, truly a "First Lady" worthy of the title.
Like the commercial goes:
Dinner- 50$
Movie- 30$
Bottle of Wine- 150$
Watching the Prez run rings around his political opponents- Pricele$$
Good George C. Scott Patton MP3
http://www.reelclassics.com/Audio_Video/Quotes8b/gcscott_patton_openingspeech.mp3
(**once you click on the link, youll have to "refresh" it when you get the "not found" page and the file will then start**)
_________________
“Then away out in the woods I heard that kind of a sound that a ghost makes when it wants to tell about something that's on its mind and can't make itself understood, and so can't rest easy in its grave, and has to go about that way every night grieving.”-Mark Twain |
|
Wed Jan 29, 2003 7:20 am |
|
|
Roach
SBR Belfry Bat
Joined: 20 Jan 2002
Posts: 3233
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorath
-What about Israel?
They have promised, at the USA’s request, to stay out of it as long as Saddam doesn’t fire anymore SCUDs into their country.
quote:
Originally posted by xSamhainx
Poor Hillary, she had to sit thru another one of these things! When the camera panned to her she was stark white and Daschle had this glazed-over look in his eyes as well. I love the camera shots of the congress during speeches.
@Sam Did you see Ted Kennedy? He looked like he had either fallen asleep or died in his chair!  |
|
Wed Jan 29, 2003 7:37 am |
|
|
Val
Risen From Ashes
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA |
The evidence, as stated, will be presented to the UN security council on Feb 5th. Then there's the evidence that was already presented by the inspectors themselves and what Britain has discovered.
As for how the war will be executed? Well, I doubt they're going to send out a press release detailing their plans for attack. It looks like this time around nothing short of regime change will satisfy though.
Is oil worth it? Yes. Our world is fueled by it. Is freedom for the Iraqi people worth it? Definately yes.
Will there be casualties? Yes. I certainly hope it isn't one of my cousins who are deployed there currently. But I support them 100%. I imagine great pains will be taken to avoid civilian casualties. However, there's no 100% assurance that that will be. It's not like our troops will be trying to harm civilians, but there's never been a war where someone innocent didn't get hurt.
Considering an "oil" man just proposed $1.2 billion dollars for research and development of hydrogen powered vehicles, I don't think it's just about oil.
If regime change happens, then I hope we will help rebuild Iraq much the same way we helped rebuild Japan after WW II.
I imagine it'll be quite expensive. So was every other war ever fought.
I imagine their attitudes will be similar to what they were after the Gulf War in the 90s.
Isreal will probably sit this war out like they did the last one. At least, they'll probably be forced to if they want to keep the US for an ally.
Biggest campaign contributor? It was a bank. MBNA or something. They also contributed to the Democrates. Cheney's previous job was with Halliburton.
@Roach: That was funny! What would have been better is if he fell out of his chair.
_________________
Freeeeeeedom! Thank heavens it's summer!
What do I have to show for my hard work? A piece of paper! Wee!
=Guardian, Moderator, UltimaDot Newshound= |
|
Wed Jan 29, 2003 7:48 am |
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
| Re: Bush's State of the union |
|
A quick preface - This is not intended to be anti-American and I'm not an apologist for Saddam. I would like to respond to a couple of remarks.
quote:
Originally posted by Jung
It's not like this is out of the blue aggression against Iraq...I don't understand why other nations act as if Saddam hasn't been given a chance or hasn't done anything to provoke this situation.
To many people a clear case has not been made as to why imminent action is necessary. Yes, there is a good argument to mount that Iraq has not complied with UN resolutions - but that argument has been valid for several years without an obvious need for immediate action.
Non-compliance with a UN resolution in itself is insufficient reason for military action. There are numerous examples of breaches/ignoring of UN security resolutions by many countries and reactions have ranged from disinterest to mild rebuke. Simple examples are Israels occupation of Ramallah (Res 1435) or the current alleged movement of Iraqi oil by Syria (Res 1373 re sanctions). I'm not trying to compare the illegal transport of oil by Syria to the potential situation in Iraq - I'm just arguing that the UN resolution itself is insufficient reason for invasion.
So a case needs to be made that there is an immediate safety threat posed by Iraq - there has been some rhetoric but little hard evidence. I'm not suggesting Saddam is a nice man - he's a heinous dictator but so are many others. I have heard an argument that this evidence exists but can't be put to the public (military secrets, security concerns etc) but I believe nations like Germany and France would have been swayed if presented with hard evidence. It is unreasonable to ask countries to join in a military coalition without providing persuasive evidence and intelligence. So I have to wonder either why this evidence has not yet been presented or why it's not compelling.
I think it's reasonable to be suspicious of Iraqi involvement in terrorist attacks. I would be better persuaded of this if I saw a genuine attempt to follow this through elsewhere. I am convinced that Wahabism is being used in Saudi Arabia to generate anti-US activists. Many extremist schools are funded by the government but there is little comment from US authorities and even less action. Why? Almost every discussion I've seen of Iraqi involvement in terrorism also implicates Iran, Syria and others.
quote:
Originally posted by Jung
I don't understand why some feel that oil isn't worth fighting for. Oil is a tangible and valuable resource akin to land that is one of the few things that may be worth scrapping over.
This argument validates Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in the first place. I hope the civilised world has moved past mere empire-building.
quote:
Originally posted by Suicidal Cockroach
Though the examples of Saddam’s treatment of his own people was far more convincing to me.
I actually think this is a fair argument - but let's be even handed. If this is to be about humanitarian interests then there are many other regimes that need action. Has Bush even commented on Mugabe and the slaughter in Zimbabwe?
It may well be that Iraq requires a military solution - but I would argue that better evidence needs to be presented. At the very least, Hans Blicks should be allowed the complete his inspection and present a full report, not just an interim one, hopefully with the help of all this information the US has. |
|
Wed Jan 29, 2003 7:48 am |
|
|
Val
Risen From Ashes
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA |
| Re: Bush's State of the union |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dhruin
If this is to be about humanitarian interests then there are many other regimes that need action. Has Bush even commented on Mugabe and the slaughter in Zimbabwe?
Did the same thing as Europe, I think.  Applied sanctions. I remember reading about the House passing a bill about it. I don't know if the Senate passed it or not since I haven't read up on it recently.
_________________
Freeeeeeedom! Thank heavens it's summer!
What do I have to show for my hard work? A piece of paper! Wee!
=Guardian, Moderator, UltimaDot Newshound= |
|
Wed Jan 29, 2003 8:11 am |
|
|
Finarfin
Baron of the Court
Joined: 20 Nov 2002
Posts: 345
Location: London |
I really don't understand why the americans want to go to war, if you are going to topple one evil dictator, you should topple them all, but i don't see them going to war with China or Zimbabwe or any of the others, it can't be because iraq are a threat to the US, because Iraq isn't, not in any way, iraq isn't even a threat to middle eastern countries.
Also there isn't any evidence that iraq supports terrorism against the US (infact the threat of terrorism towards the US is very minimal), although once the war starts that will change, US foreign policy has created more terrorists than islam ever did.
Also i just can't agree with the killing of innocent civilians for bush's own political goals, and i wish britain would pull back the way france and germany have
i also find it slightly ironic that he is "fighting for democracy" when the only reason he is in power in the first place is because his little brother rigged the election in his favour!
_________________
I didn't get where i am today by talking in clichés, i avoid clichés like the plague, a cliché to me is like a red rag to a bull..... |
|
Wed Jan 29, 2003 11:38 am |
|
|
Lintra
Elf Friend
Joined: 23 Apr 2002
Posts: 9448
Location: Bermuda, the triangle place with SANDY BEACHES |
@Jaz -
@ All - What I don't understand is the confusion over why Iraq is different than other rotten countries (and there are many). The big difference is:
Saddam made a play to take over another country through outright aggression and lost. LOST. The terms of the peace treaty that allowed him to stay in power included total disarmament of WMD. Let me restate that, in essence Saddam said "Okay, you win. If you let me live I promise to get rid of all these nasty weapons" ... What was NOT agreed to was "Okay you win, and if you can find any nasty weapons, then I will get rid of them". Usually when one side reneges on a contract the entire contract is null and void ...
How many WMDs has Iraq disposed of since they surrendered? I might be wrong, but my guess is none that weren't "found" by inspectors. The idea was for the inspectors to verify the destruction, NOT engage in a forlorn and futile attempt to find them. Iraq is a big country. A ton of nerve gas is small and easily buried. With out active cooperation the WMDs will not be disposed of ... and I doubt anyone out there thinks Iraq has been actively cooperative.
The moral of the story is that the first coalition was duped ... in the future the stance taken by the WWII allies is the only one that should be used: unconditional surrender or nothing.
@Val - that wasn't too harsh was it?
Edit:
@Dhruin
1. When do you take action? When is enough enough? Do you wait until Tel Aviv is reduced to radioactive slag?
2. I do not find the foot dragging of other countries sufficient cause for doubt. Avoidance of conflict is, understandably, high on Europe's list of things to do....but conflict avoidance got us Sep 1939 and WWII.
3. Yes there are other areas of the world in which extreme abuses are taking place, but is inability to cure all ills an excuse not to cure any ills?
4. I am REALLY glad I live in a low priority target zone vis-à-vis terrorist activity <grin>.
also edit multiple spelling errors <sheepish look> "baaaaa"
_________________
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Just plain clueless= |
|
Wed Jan 29, 2003 3:42 pm |
|
|
Jung
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 19 Jun 2002
Posts: 411
Location: Texas |
quote:
Originally posted by Gorath
Jung, I´m sure you collected all necessary informations before you started this discussion. So please enlighten us.
-Is there any proof that Saddam still has A/B/C-weapons? Which are a danger to the USA? In a democratic society people (and also countries) are not guilty until there guilt has been proven with 100% certainty. That Saddam is pure evil doesn´t count.
-How will the war be executed? What are the (semi-)official estimated numbers of casualties on both sides and how many of them will be civilists?
Do you still think some Oil is worth it?
-A war will result in the removal of Irak´s current government. What then?
-How expensive will such a war be? How expensive will the after war phase in the Irak be?
-What will the other countries in that region think? Will there attitude towards the USA (have to) change because their people will think it was a war of aggression? Are you prepared to deal with the strengthening of the radical groups that will follow?
-What about Israel?
All this is surprisingly complicated.
And on a sidenote:
-Who was the biggest contributor to Bush´s election campain? And what was Cheney´s job before he went back to the government?
So, I have to answer all these questions before I start a discussion? I don't think so. That is what a discussion is for. I am merely stating my opinion after the speech, not that I have all the answers. I have to trust(or not trust, as you seem to) that our leaders have some of this worked this out. This will be complicated for sure, but letting Saddam continue to build power will not make things simpler later. Saddam has weapons(we know because he's used them), and he is supposed to be showing them to inspectors, not forcing inspectors to search. So, it's not like US is making baseless alegations that Iraq is hiding weapons. If weapons inspectors don't find the weapons he is hiding, does that mean he is innocent?
_________________
"You two are a regular ol' Three Musketeers." |
|
Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:18 pm |
|
|
Jung
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 19 Jun 2002
Posts: 411
Location: Texas |
| Re: Bush's State of the union |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dhruin
quote:
Originally posted by Jung
I don't understand why some feel that oil isn't worth fighting for. Oil is a tangible and valuable resource akin to land that is one of the few things that may be worth scrapping over.
This argument validates Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in the first place. I hope the civilised world has moved past mere empire-building.
You are distorting my statement. There is a distinction between fighting to keep oil flowing as a commodity and taking over another country in order to sieze it's oil.
_________________
"You two are a regular ol' Three Musketeers." |
|
Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:25 pm |
|
|
|
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Mon Apr 08, 2019 5:29 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
