Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Bush's address

So apparently, it's the USA's sovereign right to defend itself in the face of any threats it perceives, tangible or otherwise. Therefore, as far as Bush is concerned, he can wage war on anybody, with or without approval from the international community, so long as there's the potential for a threat against the US some day. That's pretty much any country then....

And he accused France of threatening to veto "any resolution which compels Iraq to disarm". This is a lie. France threatened to veto any resolution which allows the automatic use of force, which is something quite different.

"War crimes will be prosecuted .. it will be no defence to say 'I was just following orders'" - that's funny, since Bush is against allowing an international criminal court to have jurisdiction over US troops. So it's okay to accuse others of war crimes, but they themselves should be immune.

He again made a link between Al Qaeda which has yet to be proved by anybody. He's taking opinion and suspicion and presenting it as fact and justification. "We are a peaceful people", yadda yadda. "We cannot afford to delay any longer" because it's suddenly imperative that something is done NOW, otherwise the world will end or something. And he doesn't understand the difference between containment and appeasement.

Basically, he's talking bollocks, inconsistent, falsified, bollocks. Just as expected.

"May God continue to bless America"

Well fuck that.

  • 1
Bush is such an idiot.

And if I hear him say "nukular" one more fucking time...

heh. i like it when he slowed down and looked confused when saying the word "appeasement" :D

also, isn't it disaRNament? cause he kept saying disaRMament, and it was bugging me because i wasn't sure if I was right...

and don't even get me started on Eye-Rack ;-)

Bush is smarter than you

It is disarmament. ;o)

really? ah well..

personally, i'd be worried if the President of The USA wasn't smarter than me. Now I can sleep safely at night! ;-)

Well, he's not all bad. *sarcasm* Let's not forget that he supports "hispanically-owned businesses."

Is it just me, or does that not sound quite right either? In that case, should we say caucasianally-owned or blackly-owned businesses, too?

he's talking bollocks

Basically, he's talking bollocks, inconsistent, falsified, bollocks

Be fair ...

at least he consistently talks bollocks (when you can understand what the pillock is actually trying to say)

God damn. You brittish are a picky crew, aren't you?

As far as I'm concerned, Iraq attacking someone is a guaranteed thing. Regardless of whether or not they win, they will still attack. Should we wait for them to come and attack us, on their terms, or should we move in and strike when it's convenient for us, so that we're not caught off-guard and don't suffer unneeded casualties?

But then again, I'm just a dumb American. . .

On what do you base that? Is there perhaps evidence that they are planning attacks? Is there evidence that they have weapons with which to attack?

I'll give you the simple answer - no, there isn't.

"As far as I'm concerned".. You're entitled to your opinion, but it changes nothing. There is no evidence to support the idea that Iraq is planning to attack anybody.

As far as I'm concerned, the only nation in the world right now that is guaranteed to attack people is the United States. Given that the USA is inevitably going to attack Iraq, if Saddam bombed US targets right now in a pre-emptive strike against a known aggressor, I wouldn't blame him. After all, he's just trying to protect his people...

This "they'll attack us someday, let's kill them now" mentality might be fine with international backing. If the world recognises that a country is a threat, then something will be done. But for the USA to go it alone, without backing from anybody (the UK and Australia don't count - the people in those countries are predominantly anti-war), without providing any proof... well that's a nasty precedent. If the evidence is so compelling, you'd think they could convince other countries....

In short - Iraq has never attacked the United States, hasn't shown any sign of intention to attack the USA unprovoked, has not got any links to Al Qaeda, and has not been proven to be in possession of any weapons of mass destruction. On what basis is this war possibly justified?

If you wait for proof of something, then you're going to end up waiting until it's too late.

Wait for proof of weapons of mass destruction? You want to know when we'll realize they have them? When they're using them on us. Well, using them on the United States. Because no other country realizes they pose a threat.

Oh, and- the US isn't inevitably going to attack. Bush gave an ultimatum. It's still in the air.

The situation you posed is funny. You wouldn't blame Iraq for bombing us now, because they view us as the agressors. It's the exact same thing. We're worried for our people. We fear that they're going to attack us, and kill some of our people. So, rather than waiting to be attacked, we're moving forward, and doing exactly what you said you wouldn't blame Hussein for.

We weren't waiting for them to prove it to us. We sent people into their country to look for them, and found no evidence of them. We actively sought out their weapons, and came back without the evidence that Bush was looking for. So he's going to bomb them anyway.

And Bush is fairly confident that Saddam won't be leaving the country. Even if he does leave, the troops are still going in to disarm them - it all depends on how much resistance Iraq offers.

And the reason I said I wouldn't blame Saddam for attacking first is because it would be playing the US at its own game. I don't condone anybody attacking, but if he were to attack, it would seem to be consistent with the rules of engagement that Bush has been laying down. I intended it as a parody of the current situation, not a recommendation that he should attack.

Yes, we didn't find any weapons of mass destruction. Doesn't mean they don't exist. Someone as militaristically smart as Hussein wouldn't have very much trouble hiding them.

In conventional justice systems, proof is required before somebody is condemned as guilty. A suspicion of weapons is not enough to justify going in there and killing innocents in order to look. The diplomatic alternatives are far from exhausted.

  • 1

Log in

No account? Create an account