anny, Isn’t Bush following UN suggestions, but adding teeth, which the UN seems reluctant to show or use? That ‘same ol rcap’ is the UN’s current findings… A violation of the agreement Iraq and the UN had… No smoking gun is needed. Inspectors verify… they do not have to uncover 30,000 missing nerve gas delivery projectiles that the Iraqi’s say they destroyed (but had to verify, but cannot). Iraq has violated over 114 points of the surrender agreement from Persian Gulf War I.
According to Time Magazine (had a big story on this a few weeks back) Back in August, Bush was ready to declare war on Iraq without consulting the UN. He was inches away from it when Colin Powell stopped him, sat him down, and explained to him the diplomatic consequences of going it alone. Now, because of Powell, we at least have a handful of countries to back us up.
Bush completely lied about “30,000 prohibited missles, we found 16”. The Missles they found were not prohibited. They were conventional, short range, military weapons, completely allowed to Iraq. They are in effect, just artillery.
Didn’t Bush say, in his previous SOU speech or the speech he gave Sept. 14, 2001, that this war would take ten years or more, and that it would be like no other war? You sound like a liberal… “gimme facts, gimme money, gimme peace!” They all go together. find one and the others are soon to follow.
I could care less about what Bush says. The American people, whom he serves, are entiltled to know what is going on. I do not trust Bush, only a fool would trust him. I want to know where our soldiers are (after they are out of danger of course), where the money is being spent (So we don’t have a repeat of the Iran-Iraq war, selling weapons to both sides), and I damn well want peace. You should be a criminal if you enjoy a war.
Heard Gov. Locke’s approval rating in Washington (state of) is about 30% and that he cut Medicaid (bad, bad Democrat! ).
Wow, that’s even worst than our governor… :-?
! I attended a lecture(actually, a weekend seminar in 1997) by Milton Friedman (the most widely respected economist of the last 30 years) in which he explained how Reaganomics worked better than planned.
You met Milton Friedman? Lucky you. :wink: What is he, 91 now?
According to current numbers the downturn began in late 1998 and was covered by the Clinton administration until deciphered by the Bush admin.
Yes, the economic downturn began while Clinton was still in office.
Bad speech:
Domestic issues: He said what people wanted to hear, but his real budget shows different numbers. Unfortunately, most Americans are too lazy or stupid to read he actual plan and take him at his word.
Iraq: This is the same tired crap we have been hearing all year, and it still stinks. He failed to answer some key questions in my mind:
1. Why only Iraq? There are lots of dictatorships in the world trying to get weapons of mass destruction.
2. Why aren’t we still trying to capture Osama Bin Laden? Didn’t he promise to bring him to justice? He’s not trying very hard.
3. What roles did key members of the US government play in bring Saddam to power and maintaining it through the inhumane means listed in Bush’s speech. In particular, how about full disclosure of the activities of Donald Rumsfield with Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war. If we are truly a nation that stands for freedom and liberty, then we should have nothing to hide right?
I also did not like the lies in his speech.
1. He talked about homeland security, but his office is blocking funding of the bill that was passed by the Republican congress.
2. He accused Iraq of torture, which I am sure they do, but he ignored the reports that Al queda prisoners in US custody are being “shared” with allies willing to perform “interrogation methods” the the U.S. considers torture.
3. The UN team said that the Aluminum tubes they found were not the kind needed to purify Uranium, but Bush said they were.
Lastly, I despise politicians that invoke the name of God to back their entirely human agendas. Bush needs to read the ten commandments. “Thou shaly not take the name of Lord your God in vain.” Bush, presumed to speak for God, and that God supports his War on Iraq. Very bad form. Much worse than all the “God Bless America” signs on places of business after 9/11.
A few things,
Hitlerism isn’t a word.
Osama is probably dead. There is no proof that he is alive. That tape was declared “probably a fake” by some institute.
Yanny, artillery rockets for delivering sarin
Locke got elected because his family is pretty (which says a lot about our state, we can only feel slightly better than California and New Jersey)
When we annex Canada and combine RI and CT into one state we should make Canda into a state called “New Washington”
About the DNC rebuttal, this one pundit said it best, “one of the worst buttals I have ever seen”
Those pipes he mentioned are probably for rockets delivering nerve gas, not for enriching plutonium for nukes.
Locke got elected because his family is pretty (which says a lot about our state, we can only feel slightly better than California and New Jersey)
At least our governor looks like a governor… when I saw him speak he seemed a little too giddy (nervous - hyperactive - whatever :-?) and unsure about himself. Also, I don’t want to hear about the life history of the man, I wanted to know about counterpoints. And does he wear a toupee? Me thinks the Demi’s would’ve been better with Gray Davis even. At least he has a much better ability to lie.
When we annex Canada and combine RI and CT into one state we should make Canda into a state called “New Washington”
can’t wait until this happens… no more canadians :lol: j/k j/k
“When we annex Canada and combine RI and CT into one state we should make Canda into a state called “New Washington””
Should not Canada belong to the Canadians? :( Just as long as they are free to choose. :)
yeah it most deifintely should, i was just kiddin. in fact, we have tried to invade canada 5 different times in our nation’s histroy, and we have not succecded once
Those Canadians sure can be courageous little buggers. ^_^
I’m not a great communicator so forgive as I lean on the better communication skills of others. The essay linked to below pretty much says everything I think and feel about Bush’s state of the Union speech. The author elquently points out several flaws in Bush’s logic that I for one would like answers to before agreeing that we need to go to war.
Sum Kritik - i am a doctor (almost)
Zero - Hear hear!
And yes, we Canadians are courageous, thanks.
Those Canadians sure can be courageous little buggers. ^_^
Yeah, I try my best not to piss of the Canadians. Drunken polar beers from Canada are never the solution.
yeah it most deifintely should, i was just kiddin. in fact, we have tried to invade canada 5 different times in our nation’s histroy, and we have not succecded once
That was before we had a military 100 times as powerful as theirs and before we bought 90% of their exports.
Anyway, I said we should annex not invade.
Yanny, artillery rockets for delivering sarin … Those pipes he mentioned are probably for rockets delivering nerve gas, not for enriching plutonium for nukes.
Well, if you denied them artillery, they would be totally defenseless to any country deciding to invade for any reasons.
Even a grenade launcher can be used to deliver chemical weapons, as can those little planes that are used to spay insecticides (sp?), let alone any person with a glas or plastic bottle….
So, unless we find the ammunition that is designe dto carry chemial weapons, you can only suppose that the arti would be used for that reasons and not with conventional weapons.
@F_alk:
Yanny, artillery rockets for delivering sarin … Those pipes he mentioned are probably for rockets delivering nerve gas, not for enriching plutonium for nukes.
Well, if you denied them artillery, they would be totally defenseless to any country deciding to invade for any reasons.
Even a grenade launcher can be used to deliver chemical weapons, as can those little planes that are used to spay insecticides (sp?), let alone any person with a glas or plastic bottle….
So, unless we find the ammunition that is designe dto carry chemial weapons, you can only suppose that the arti would be used for that reasons and not with conventional weapons.
That’s a complete oversimplification. The weapons inspectors are able to determine the probable use of the artillary shells by their dimensions, capacity, etc. Iraq is allowed to possess shells up to a certain range, but nothing beyond that.
5km range is artillery, and nothing else. I could put Biological weapons in a coke can if I wanted to.
Artillery is probably the most important force on the battlefield, after the individual soldier. Iraq is aloud to have Artillery, as any nation should. Bush competely lied to us when he said these weapons were prohibited.
This concept of current borders created by Evil EUROPEAN Imperialists being sacrosonct is ludicrous.
@Deviant:Scripter:
@F_alk:
Yanny, artillery rockets for delivering sarin … Those pipes he mentioned are probably for rockets delivering nerve gas, not for enriching plutonium for nukes.
So, unless we find the ammunition that is designe dto carry chemial weapons, you can only suppose that the arti would be used for that reasons and not with conventional weapons.
That’s a complete oversimplification. The weapons inspectors are able to determine the probable use of the artillary shells ….
See what you wrote:
shells
See what i wrote:
ammunition
So, where is the difference?
You need the shells/ammunition to decide wether they are for chemuical weapons or not……
This concept of current borders created by Evil EUROPEAN Imperialists being sacrosonct is ludicrous.
True…
but you can be sure that no country would give away a whiff of territory…
And Iraq already tried once to overrule that concept… and lost the support of the US earning their animosity for it.
Ironically, Kuwait is culturally and socially accurate in it’s borders
