|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 03/07/2003 : 07:55:28
|
Anybody catch the "We are going to War" swagger that Bush had last night. The timber of his address to the press seemed to indicate that war is inevitable and fuck the UN if they don't come along. Dismissive talk about protests comparing them to the WTO protests was really misplaced. But at least he invented new words again. "Totalyism".
I hesitate to call his "taking questions" actually that because he had a list that he obviously referred to while taking questions. 
Anybody but Bush in 2004 if I can't convince my Congressmen to impeach his ass first.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 03/07/2003 : 08:26:39 [Permalink]
|
Well, I have a toob, but it it dosen't work. However, my son-in-law taped it, at my request, and I saw as much of it as I could stomach this morning at breakfast, at his house. I opted out of it before the questions. It was spoiling my OBX breakfsst (fresh shad roe scrambled with eggs and home-made sasuage & biscuits with real butter. My cholestrol should be about 590 by now).
I think what struck me the most was Smirky's general demeanor. He looked and sounded like he was on some kind of downer. I have never seen a politition put forth such a lack-luster and unconvincing performance -- it seemed to me all but robotic. What text I watched was nothing I didn't expect.
I agree Val Dan, this wretched individual has to go. I think '04 will be the end of him, war or no war.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2003 : 10:59:24 [Permalink]
|
Actually, the questions were the mosting important part. Every time Bush was asked why so many other people and nations disagreed he either had no idea why or turned the question back to himself and his supporters. That's the problem, he just doesn't get it. I am even for removing Saddam when it comes down to it but Bush started down the road headed the wrong way by proclaiming we'd do it alone from day one. He is not his father and seems to want to make a joke of daddy Bush's New World Order.
I don't think we'd be looking at the same news reports if Bush had really thought about building a strong coalition from day one instead of using bully tactics which really aren't tactics at all. Instead, we are faced with a very unpopular at home and abroad and have created a huge amount of tension unecessarily. That's what you get for electing an idiot.
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2003 : 11:07:16 [Permalink]
|
Just out of curiosity, since the Political forum has pretty much been a unanimous "Bash Bush Fest" for weeks now, I'm wondering if any of you guys have ever reflected on how objective you are being with regards to him and his speeches?
I have no desire to defend the guy (his religious antics alone are enough for me to want him out of there), but I just wonder if you guys are hearing what you expect to hear, rather than what he is actually saying.
For example, I found his speech last night pretty light on the typical political spin, disengenuous doublespeak (though I thought it odd he wouldn't answer the question about whether or not a "victory" must include killing or capturing Saddam). If we were to give him the benefit of the doubt about any speculative ulterior motives for war with Iraq (revenge, oil, etc.), I thought he made an excellent case for the go-ahead. |
|
|
|
walt fristoe
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2003 : 11:22:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tokyodreamer
If we were to give him the benefit of the doubt about any speculative ulterior motives for war with Iraq (revenge, oil, etc.), I thought he made an excellent case for the go-ahead.
I'm not at all sure that anyone who wields the kind of awesome power that Bush does should be given "the benefit of the doubt". He (or anyone else with his level of power) should be completely transparent as to motivation. Perhaps part of the reason our world is in such a sorry state is because we have for too long given "the benefit of the doubt" to those powerful politicians and businessmen with nefarious motives. |
"If God chose George Bus of all the people in the world, how good could God be?"
Bill Maher |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2003 : 11:43:31 [Permalink]
|
The problem is not just how this plays to an American audience but how it plays to everyone else in the world. The way Bush is playing, the USA becomes the #1 rogue state and enemy of the majority of the world's population and therefore the risk of terrorist attacks go up. With more enemies, terrorists might end up with more safe places to run bases and we already know how well that works out for us. If Bush worked with the system instead of trying to bend it to fit his needs we would have a far better image worldwide and that, in my opinion, would make us a hell of a lot safer than going in and attacking Iraq.
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2003 : 11:52:28 [Permalink]
|
| Objectively, he has said nothing. Iraq is not a threat to anyone. Couldn't even beat Iran without U.S. help in the 80's. Then the US near carpet-bombing in '91. Then twelve years of sanctions with weekly or more than weekly bombing. Now the bombings have been stepped up and you know there are people on the ground in Iraq. Sattelite surveillance, absolute control of Iraqi airspace. No credible links to Osama, no evidence of "weapons of mass destruction." Nothing. How objective do you need to be with someone that's not even a good actor? Even Reagan could lie about his crimes and say at least he was a good actor. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Fireballn
Skeptic Friend
Canada
179 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2003 : 17:31:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tokyodreamer
Just out of curiosity, since the Political forum has pretty much been a unanimous "Bash Bush Fest" for weeks now, I'm wondering if any of you guys have ever reflected on how objective you are being with regards to him and his speeches?
I have no desire to defend the guy (his religious antics alone are enough for me to want him out of there), but I just wonder if you guys are hearing what you expect to hear, rather than what he is actually saying.
For example, I found his speech last night pretty light on the typical political spin, disengenuous doublespeak (though I thought it odd he wouldn't answer the question about whether or not a "victory" must include killing or capturing Saddam). If we were to give him the benefit of the doubt about any speculative ulterior motives for war with Iraq (revenge, oil, etc.), I thought he made an excellent case for the go-ahead.
Just a thought about 'the going to war for oil thing'. Is this just a slogan or is there some validity in this. It seems at first thought that if the states blow up Iraq it is for oil....but is that the case.
1.America liberates the Iraqi people.
2.Oil production increases
3.The price of oil is driven down
4.All countries enjoy lower gas prices
5.The Iraqi people recieve profit sharing from oil profits (supposedly)
6.Bush's Texas oil buddies lose money from the lowering of import oil prices
Slogan or fact?
|
If i were the supreme being, I wouldn't have messed around with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers 8 o'clock day one!
-Time Bandits- |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2003 : 18:03:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Just a thought about 'the going to war for oil thing'. Is this just a slogan or is there some validity in this. It seems at first thought that if the states blow up Iraq it is for oil....but is that the case.
1.America liberates the Iraqi people. - Those left alive
2.Oil production increases - Projections show that it would take several years to get anywhere near 1990's production and that doesn't take into account Saddam blowing up his own oil fields.
3.The price of oil is driven down - The price of oil has more to do with what goes on in Iraq but depending on how the war goes, prices could get quite a bit more expensive. Oil reserves are at low and if there is a war count on what oil is coming out of Iraq stopping completely for some time to a looong time. If things go really bad look for gas at $4-$5 a gallon at a pump near you. Tahnk Bush for that while you pump. But it's sweet for US oil producers.
4.All countries enjoy lower gas prices - Fantasy except maybe in several years. See above
5.The Iraqi people recieve profit sharing from oil profits (supposedly) - Someone's smoking something
6.Bush's Texas oil buddies lose money from the lowering of import oil prices - They make money no matter what happens. While prices are up now with the threat of war they are gouging everyone. Long term, they have new reserves to tap in Iraq as US supplies dwindle. The big upshot of a successful war is that supplies can resume out of Iraq full tilt with the help of US Big Oil investment.
Big Oil makes out no matter what. Fact.
@tomic
|
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2003 : 02:12:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tokyodreamer
Just out of curiosity, since the Political forum has pretty much been a unanimous "Bash Bush Fest" for weeks now, I'm wondering if any of you guys have ever reflected on how objective you are being with regards to him and his speeches?
From time to time I've tried to listen to him speak but can't take it after a few minutes. He CAN'T speak English and it's very annoying. IMO, people who don't speak proper English are idiots and P. Bush is king moron.
And furthermore, anyone who says 'had went' should be shot. |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2003 : 02:21:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fireballn
Just a thought about 'the going to war for oil thing'. Is this just a slogan or is there some validity in this. It seems at first thought that if the states blow up Iraq it is for oil....but is that the case.
Can someone explain this:
I don't get it.....I've heard many people state that we (the USA) get only 15% of oil from the mid-east, or is it Iraq...whatever, it seems like a small amount to be fighting over. For those who think it's about the oil! Unless the 15% is not correct!
IMO this whole war business is an excuse to raise taxes, charge more for many things, build up the military, etc., etc. Why aren't 'we' finding and using ways to live without oil? Hum! |
|
|
|
riptor
Skeptic Friend
Germany
70 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2003 : 04:26:12 [Permalink]
|
It's 25%.
The 15% is true for europe (at least Germany), because we mainly get our oil from the Uk, Albany and Russia. |
Hail the Big bearded Jellyfish up in heaven above. |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2003 : 14:26:36 [Permalink]
|
Here's why Bush is acting so nuts and is "wanting" to go to war in spite of public opinion:
 |
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2003 : 19:20:40 [Permalink]
|
Bash a Bush, and hug a tree, make some room for me.
This is a couple of exerts from an OpEd piece by Mark Shields;
"To call the current protests against the United States making war on Iraq -- which could on one raw February Saturday turn out in the city streets of dozens of countries some six million people -- "the largest demonstration since the Vietnam War" is both inaccurate and misleading. It was 1967 before the protests against U.S. involvement in Vietnam got any real public traction. By then, the United States had been at war for over three years and 19,547 Americans had already lost their lives. Today's American protesters for peace seek, before the first bomb is dropped or the first child is orphaned, to stop their own country from going to war against Iraq."
"The president remains determined and unmoved. When asked about remarkable turnout of citizens protesting his policy, Bush answered: "Size of protest, it's like deciding, well, I'm going to decide policy based upon a focus group. The role of a leader is to decide policy based upon the security -- in this case, the security of the people." (For those readers not steeped in market jargon, "focus groups" are composed of a dozen or so individuals assembled around a table and quizzed by a pollster to learn what ordinary folks are looking for in shampoo conditioner or in a lieutenant governor.) Seven hundred and fifty thousand people in London and a police-estimated crowd of more than 660,000 in Madrid -- part of Spain's biggest demonstration since the 1975 death of dictator Francisco Franco -- hardly qualify as focus groups."
http://www.creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?next=2&ColumnsName=msh |
 |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2003 : 20:20:35 [Permalink]
|
It looks like that in the big picture, after the Taliban, Iraq, it's going to be Iran, while the Chinese are apparently supposed to deal with North Korea. If not, quote:
North Korea will be left to China to deal with,with Mr Bush making clear to China that, if it does not take its responsibilities seriously, Japan will be given nuclear weapons.
quote:
So much attention has been focused on Iraq that most observers have ignored what stares us in the face. When President Bush made his "axis of evil" speech, singling out Iraq, North Korea and Iran, he was not simply looking for good headlines. He was revealing a template for action.
The war on terror is not simply about destroying the Taliban and taking down Saddam; it is a far more complex operation. The President has carefully set about action in ascending order of difficulty. First the Taliban. Then Saddam. Then the next step, Iran - the world's leading financier of terror.
At least they're focusing on some real threats.
quote:
This is not speculation; talk, as I have, to those within the Bush circle - to those who share, and influence, the views of figures such as Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, who were pointing out the threat posed by terror long before September 11 - and they will take you through the plan step by step.
As one of those thinkers, Michael Ledeen, of the American Enterprise Institute, the think tank closest to the Bush Administration, puts it: "Iran is the mother of modern Islamic terrorism. The mad vision that we now associate with Osama bin Laden was elaborated more than a decade ago by Ayatollah Khomeini and institutionalised in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Both preach unbridled hatred of America, the Jews, and anything that represents the modern secular state."
|
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2003 : 03:11:48 [Permalink]
|
The news today was filled with reports that Iran is possibly on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. If the plan is to go there expect a bombing soon or maybe the US army will just keep driving after it gets to Bagdad? I doubt that, but Iran is not going to be a viable target soon and all the think tanks are going to have to revise their shit fast because it's just no fun when your enemies, the enemies you did your best to create, finally have the big one.
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
