Bush's speech....

[Malachi151]

I think it was a very well written and well given speech.

Having said that I think it was a deceptive crock.

I think that its a great speech for people who buy into him and a good vs evil ideology, other than that it falls flat.

Here's where I do agree with "what he said", and that is that at this point America does now have an obligation to see this through and to fight for freedom and democracy in Iraq and the Middle East.

However, my idea of freedom adn his idea of freedom are, I'm sure, two vastly different things.

Mostly the fact is that the administration lied to get us into the war, they were not cooperative with anyone, they were not forthcoming, they are still not being forthcoming, there is still way too much cronyism going on with the award of contracts, and the fact is that they did this for reasons other than just the "liberation" of Iraqi people.

I do not beleive that people in Iraq are "fighting for tyranny", I beleive they are fighting for what they believe is freedom to them.

The people opposing the US in Iraq are not all fighting for unjust causes in thier own eyes, they are fighting for what they believe is right. I do not believe in a world of good vs evil, I believe in a world of confusion and conflicting agendas and misunderstanding and that people are dying fighting for what they think is right on both sides of the gun and the the continued promotion of the idea of good vs evil does just as much harm as anything else because ultimately understanding is the issue here.

I also noticed that he said explicitly that he wanted more help from the UN... as long as its all under American control. That was a big issue, and I admit he phrased it as well as possible, but he said that he isn't goign to accept the UN as equal partners and thats what they are asking for.

 

[Ziggurat]

I do not beleive that people in Iraq are "fighting for tyranny", I beleive they are fighting for what they believe is freedom to them.

I have to disagree with you on this one. How does bombing the UN headquarters in Baghdad further any possible goal of Iraqi freedom? It doesn't. It pushes Iraq towards chaos. That wasn't some mistake on their part, that's exactly what they wanted.

The people opposing the US in Iraq are not all fighting for unjust causes in thier own eyes, they are fighting for what they believe is right.

It really doesn't matter if they think they were right, those leading the armed resistance are not right, and what they really want is not prosperity for Iraq. They're actively trying to undermine that.

I do not believe in a world of good vs evil, I believe in a world of confusion and conflicting agendas and misunderstanding and that people are dying fighting for what they think is right on both sides of the gun and the the continued promotion of the idea of good vs evil does just as much harm as anything else because ultimately understanding is the issue here.

Call it what you will, but most of this is NOT a matter of misunderstanding. The terrorists trying to disrupt Iraq do not WANT a free, democratic, and prosperous Iraq, they do not want what most Iraqis want and need. They know damn well that's what we're trying to accomplish, and they plan to do anything they can to stop it, because if we succeed it will be a major blow to their efforts to plunge the whole world into a medieval fundamentalist hellhole. There can be no meeting of minds here, the very goals of the terrorists are unacceptable to civilized people. They had what they wanted for a while in Afghanistan, and they made it hell on earth. They want the same thing in Iraq. I think it is rather you who does not understand them. You would prefer to pretend that they're just like everyone else, just desperate and misunderstood. That is not the case at all. The terrorists will take up arms against us regardless of what we do, because they honestly believe they can win. Hiding from that fact will not keep you safe from them.

I also noticed that he said explicitly that he wanted more help from the UN... as long as its all under American control. That was a big issue, and I admit he phrased it as well as possible, but he said that he isn't goign to accept the UN as equal partners and thats what they are asking for.

And he damn well shouldn't. The UN cannot handle security, that's rather simple. And whoever is handling security needs to be in charge to be able to do that effectively. The UN wants control because the beaurocrats want to hold onto as much power and relevance as they can, but ceding control to the UN wouldn't help at all, and could easily hurt Iraq quite a bit (need I remind people again of how the UN mishandled the safe zones in Bosnia?). I'm all for opening up the process of contract awards, but the US should stay in the leadership position in Iraq, because nobody else can honestly do the job, even if someone else has more "justification" according to you.

 

[a_unique_person]

Another view.

 

[corplinx]

Another view.

A view based on some alternate universe? One of the great things the president did in his speech is debunk the idea that somehow the west has already failed or that things are going as badly as it seems (only bad reports make it into headlines of course).

I think the best thing Bush did was go beyond the petty details of the current conflict and talk about the big picture. It seems many have lost sight of the big picture.

 

[Malachi151]

It really doesn't matter if they think they were right, those leading the armed resistance are not right, and what they really want is not prosperity for Iraq. They're actively trying to undermine that.

Give me a break. Now I agree that some of what some of these people want, if they could have things there way, would not be good for Iraq. I also beleive that if Bush and his administrtion could have everything their way it would not be good for Iraq, but still better than what some of the others want.

However I don't believe that ANYONE is fighting and risking their lives simply to make Iraq a worse place.

All these Iraqis want prosperity for Iraq, now maybe some of the foreign fighters do not, but the Iraqis want Iraq to "be a better place", however, as we all know what everyone calls "a better place" is not the same thing.

People are not sitting around saying saying "hey lets turn Iraq into a wasteland", they are saying "We can't let the evil Americans destory Iraq!" and the Americans are saying: "
We can't let the evil Iraqis destroy Iraq!"

Add to that the fact htat America has a long history in Iraq of doing things that were not in the interests of the Iraqi people and its easy to see why many Iraqis are not wanting to cooperate with Americans.

 

[Tony]

That's a HORRIBLE cartoon. I assume that guy is 'spose to be GW, but ti doesnt look anything like him. And it looks like arafat is driving the UN ambulance.

 

[KelvinG]

I wouldn't put much stock in anything Bush says at this point. He's desperately trying to save face and is naturally going to spin everything in his government's favour.

 

[Questioninggeller]

Another view.

LOL... HAHAHA

 

[Ziggurat]

Give me a break. Now I agree that some of what some of these people want, if they could have things there way, would not be good for Iraq.

No, I'm not going to give you a break as long as you keep posting tripe like that. Many of the terrorist activities are aimed directly at the Iraqi people themselves. That's not a matter of them being mistaken in the effects of their actions, that's a matter of their goals themselves being detrimental to Iraq. They know this, they WANT to destroy Iraq. Why the hell do you THINK they bombed the UN building? Why do they do things like bomb water mains, pipelines, and bridges? The Iraqi people suffer directly from these attacks, and that's what the terrorists are trying to accomplish.

I also beleive that if Bush and his administrtion could have everything their way it would not be good for Iraq, but still better than what some of the others want.

What Bush wants, and what we will achieve, WILL be a hell of a lot better than what you wanted to leave them with, which is Saddam Hussein. I don't see you having much grounds for criticising Bush's intentions towards Iraq when you were happy to leave Saddam in power. You have no real concern for human rights, as long as people are "free" from what you consider American oppression (did you know Iraq finally has freedom of the press, thanks to American oppression?), you don't seem to care what local dictators or extremists oppress them.

However I don't believe that ANYONE is fighting and risking their lives simply to make Iraq a worse place.

Then you're a fool who isn't paying attention. What do you think the Taliban were doing in Afghanistan? Do you think it's an accident that they turned that place into a stone-age cesspit?

All these Iraqis want prosperity for Iraq, now maybe some of the foreign fighters do not, but the Iraqis want Iraq to "be a better place", however, as we all know what everyone calls "a better place" is not the same thing.

Most Iraqis do just want a better life. And most Iraqis are not taking up arms against us. Coincidence?

People are not sitting around saying saying "hey lets turn Iraq into a wasteland", they are saying "We can't let the evil Americans destory Iraq!" and the Americans are saying: "
We can't let the evil Iraqis destroy Iraq!"

Just listen to yourself. You're trying to rationalize the actions of murderers. "We can't let Americans destroy Iraq, so let's go bomb the UN headquarters to try to scare off aid workers!" How can you possibly believe that such people are trying to SAVE Iraq from chaos?

 

[Jessica Blue]

One major problem is that Iraq has now become a magnet for any loose cannon with a grudge against America. For America to succeed in Iraq would be anathema to many extremists. As Bush emphasized in his speech...Iraq has now become the central battleground in the war on terrorism. Not a great prospect for ordinary Iraqis.

You have no real concern for human rights, as long as people are "free" from what you consider American oppression (did you know Iraq finally has freedom of the press, thanks to American oppression?), you don't seem to care what local dictators or extremists oppress them.

Well neither did the US when it suited it not to. Before you get too self-righteous, it needs to be remembered that the major reason for this war was supposed to be the threat Saddam Hussein and his alleged WMD'S were to the free world. "Pre-emption" was the key word. The noble cause of liberation was only an afterthought...and it's duplicitous to claim now that's what it was all about.

Would you recommend war as the standard method for removing vile dictators?

What do you think the Taliban were doing in Afghanistan? Do you think it's an accident that they turned that place into a stone-age cesspit?

No, they had some help from the Americans. It would have been difficult for the Taliban to gain power without them.

You should temper your idealization of US benevolance with a few hard truths.

 

[Malachi151]

Just listen to yourself. You're trying to rationalize the actions of murderers. "We can't let Americans destroy Iraq, so let's go bomb the UN headquarters to try to scare off aid workers!" How can you possibly believe that such people are trying to SAVE Iraq from chaos?

Umm.. correct me if I am wrong here, but has the US not just killed over 4,000 Iraqs including women and children?

Oh, I forgot, it does not COUNT when we kill people, only when they kill people.

Duh! In their eyes the US is the aggressor and the deaths caused by the US are murder. Let's face it, the US IS the aggressor, and liek Einstein said war is just a way to legitamize murder.

What, you thinking if you wear an American military uniform then killing is okay?

This war never should have happened in the first place, it is a case of outragous murder on a massive level. The US did kill thousads of people including thousands of civilians.

No we wouldn't have done it is Iraq was not sitting on top of a ocean of oil.

Yes we did kill more Iraqis in the past few months than Saddam did in the past 12 years.

Yes there were other alternatives to this action in the first place.

I think its outlandish to have expected to be able to invade a country out of the blue and unleash the most devastating bombardment in the past 50 year history of the world and then expect the country to just fall into line and start doing what the Americans want them to do. Anyone who thought that would happen is an idiot.

Right or wrong, even if its what SHOULD happen, thinking that it WOULD happen is totally moronic.

Even if our country were taken over by a tyrant if China then invaded us to "free" us from the tyrant do you think that everyone would then fall in line and just do wahetver the Chinese say after the tyrant was gone? That's totally asanine.

 

[crocodile deathroll]

[u]Osama[/u] [u]Bin[/u] [u]Ladin[/u]

There were three words still missing from his speach Osama Bin Ladin. He has forgotten to true front for the war against terrorism is still Afghanistan where Taliban Jihadis are still pouring over the border, and Iraq is now becoming a golden opportunity for these Jihadis fanatics to engage in a new front the Bush abomination created and even asked to "bring 'em on". Why did he have to rush into Iraq when Afghanistan still was not stabilized ?

CDR

 

[Ziggurat]

One major problem is that Iraq has now become a magnet for any loose cannon with a grudge against America. For America to succeed in Iraq would be anathema to many extremists. As Bush emphasized in his speech...Iraq has now become the central battleground in the war on terrorism. Not a great prospect for ordinary Iraqis.

Neither was it a great prospect to let Saddam stay in power. Nor should the terrorists disuade us from doing what is right. Nor would the terrorists have simply stood idle had we not invaded.

Well neither did the US when it suited it not to. Before you get too self-righteous, it needs to be remembered that the major reason for this war was supposed to be the threat Saddam Hussein and his alleged WMD'S were to the free world.

It is not simply what weapons he might have possesed right now. He himself was a threat to the free world. You can't just take away a murderer's weapon and declare that he's safe to society. Bush overemphasised the importance of Saddam's current weapons capability, but the long-term danger was very real.

"Pre-emption" was the key word. The noble cause of liberation was only an afterthought...and it's duplicitous to claim now that's what it was all about.

I seem to remember a number of reasons given for why we went to war, and believe it or not, human rights was on that list. Why were no OTHER countries willing to stand up for human rights in Iraq?

Would you recommend war as the standard method for removing vile dictators?

Not always. But several things to keep in mind: we did not ONLY do this for WMD's, and we did not ONLY do this for human rights. It was a convergence of factors that singled out Iraq as a target. Iraq needed to be dealt with, simple as that. And nothing short of invading was working - he was smuggling increasing amounts of oil through Syria, making economic sanctions completely ineffective. Over a decade of diplomacy never achieved full compliance. We ran out of other options with Iraq.

No, they had some help from the Americans. It would have been difficult for the Taliban to gain power without them.

Yes, and that was a terrible, tragic mistake. Which we should have rectified earlier, but our previous failure to do so does not mean we should refrain from acting now.

You should temper your idealization of US benevolance with a few hard truths.

I've got plenty of hard truths, I don't idealize the US at all. I know the shortcomings of the US. And I also know the shortcomings of much of the rest of the world. Frankly, I think we're doing a fairly good job overall, though there are plenty of specific details to criticise. Want to pick another major power (or even the UN) and we can compare notes?

 

[Malachi151]

What do you think the Taliban were doing in Afghanistan? Do you think it's an accident that they turned that place into a stone-age cesspit?

As JB said, the Taliban came to power from outside Afganistan becuase they were helping energy companies by acting like a terrorist organization in the protection of the interests fo the energy companies. They were hunting down adn killing people who commited crimes against thes comapnies, for which they were rewared by the companies and then later by America.

The Bush administration had given some $40 million plus to them just months before 9/11 and AGAIN, the ROOT behind all of this war the Saudis who were also assisting these groups monitarily and funding the terrorist camps, INTENTIONALLY in a differnt country so they coudl escape responsiblity, which they have done.

As for Afganistan I blame the Russians for that place mostly, but in terms of the terrorist groups, they were supported by American and international companies and also by the American government. Why? Because they were initially doing things to get into favor with American propety owners in that country. The Taliban was not even behinf 9/11 either.

The Taliban were just another different issue.

9/11 was backed by the SAUDIS, NOT the TALIBAN.

“The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”

- PNAC 1998

 

[Ziggurat]

Umm.. correct me if I am wrong here, but has the US not just killed over 4,000 Iraqs including women and children?

Yes we did. And in the long run, we will have saved many more. Many more Iraqis were dying because of Saddam's abuse of the food for oil program, but we could not safely lift the sanctions because doing so would invite Saddam to reform his military capabilities and resume development of nuclear weapons.

Oh, I forgot, it does not COUNT when we kill people, only when they kill people.

Evidently you ONLY count it when we kill people. We have stopped far more deaths than we have caused. Civilian deaths suck, and we went to great pains to minimize them. But on balance our invasion was a good thing for Iraq, and the Iraqi people know that a hell of a lot better than you apparently do.

This war never should have happened in the first place, it is a case of outragous murder on a massive level. The US did kill thousads of people including thousands of civilians.

So what were you doing when Saddam was killing HUNDREDS of thousands? What plan did YOU have to bring him to justice for that?

No we wouldn't have done it is Iraq was not sitting on top of a ocean of oil.

Yes, you're correct on this point, but not for the reason you undoubtedly think. Saddam's oil meant that sanctions were completely ineffective. If Saddam hadn't had all that oil, economic sanctions might have actually had some chance of success. This operation cost a LOT of money, and will continue to cost a lot of money. We're never going to make a profit on this, the suggestion that we're just doing it to steal their oil is a paranoid delusion.

Yes we did kill more Iraqis in the past few months than Saddam did in the past 12 years.

Wrong. All the Iraqi deaths from malnutrition and poor medical care lie at the feet of Saddam, because it was his abuse of the oil for food program which lead to the dramatic deterioration of Iraqi healthcare and nutrition. I've seen estimates in the hundreds of thousands for these deaths.

Yes there were other alternatives to this action in the first place.

Then why can't you name one?

Even if our country were taken over by a tyrant if China then invaded us to "free" us from the tyrant do you think that everyone would then fall in line and just do wahetver the Chinese say after the tyrant was gone? That's totally asanine.

I think you have no idea what it's really like to live under a brutal dictatorship. I've got a friend from a small African country with a petty dictator, not as bad as Saddam but a real bastard nonetheless, who is visiting the US. When she saw Saddam's statue fall in Baghdad, she asked quite seriously if the marines could invade her country. Her relatives back home hadn't heard ANYTHING about Saddam's topple, because the media there couldn't allow the people to even think that their own leader could be overthrown.

I never expected the Iraqis to "fall in line", whatever the hell you mean by that. What I expected is that most Iraqis would be VERY happy to see Saddam go, and most are. I also expected most Iraqis to accept temporary US control without violent resistance, and again, most have.

 

[peptoabysmal]

Another view.

And yet another:

 

[Ziggurat]

The Bush administration had given some $40 million plus to them just months before 9/11

Major mischaracterization:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/05/17/us.afghanistan.aid/

"WASHINGTON -- Warning that Afghanistan is "on the verge of a widespread famine," Secretary of State Colin Powell Thursday announced a $43 million package in humanitarian assistance for the Afghan people.
...
The package includes $28 million worth of wheat from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, $5 million in food commodities and $10 million in "livelihood and food security" programs, both from the U.S. Agency for International Development. "

Funny how even food aid can be turned into an accusation of wrongdoing when you're determined to paint Bush as a bigger villain than Saddam.

and AGAIN, the ROOT behind all of this war the Saudis who were also assisting these groups monitarily and funding the terrorist camps, INTENTIONALLY in a differnt country so they coudl escape responsiblity, which they have done.

Irrelevant to the Iraq question. Irrelevant to the fact that the Taliban accomplished in Afghanistan what Al Quaeda hoped to accomplish for the entire world.

The Taliban was not even behinf 9/11 either.

The Taliban were just another different issue.

9/11 was backed by the SAUDIS, NOT the TALIBAN.

No, the Taliban weren't behind 9/11, they just aided and abetted those that were, and agreed with their philosophy, goals and methods.

I'm not sure yet what we should do about Saudi Arabia. They are certainly PART of the problem, but I don't think an invasion would help much there. But we can actually apply more pressure to them now that our troops are out of their country, because now we don't need to have their permission to keep troops in the region to maintain stability.

 

[Malachi151]

No, the Taliban weren't behind 9/11, they just aided and abetted those that were, and agreed with their philosophy, goals and methods.

You may as well blame a church or community that a Christian who shoots abortion doctor's comes from then.

So tell me, if a guy goes to a church that opposes abortion, or let's say that he lives in a rural conservative community that is very religious and the people mostly oppose abortion, and then he goes and kills a doctors because he decided that he needs to stop the people that perform abortions, you think that the church and possibly even the communty are guilty of the crime as well?

That's basically what you are saying here about 9/11.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm totally opposed to guy like the Taliban as well and was more than happy to see them be kicked out, but the truth is that they weren't involved in 9/11, 9/11 was just used as an excuse to perform regime change in Afganistan.

What we did was the equivilent to something like a guy from a small town becomes a mass murderer and when they learn where he is from they go to that town and do a shake down and arrest people for drug posession.

The two things are really unrelated.

Making a bunch of drug arrests in the has no direct impact on the rate of mass murderers. The people who had drugs in the town didn't have any real connection to the murderer. Now, the net effect may be that the town is better off becuase of all this but it ultimately has nothing to do with the origional crime.

 

[Trollbane]

The comparison between a anti-abortion and the Taliban fails.. The US tracked Osama into Afganistan and asked the Taliban to hand him over, to which they basicly answered that Osama wouldnt be handed over since he was a friend and ally.

If a foreign nation not only condones, but actively supports (as the Taliban did) attacks on another nation it is effectively a declaration of war.

 

[Malachi151]

The comparison between a anti-abortion and the Taliban fails.. The US tracked Osama into Afganistan and asked the Taliban to hand him over, to which they basicly answered that Osama wouldnt be handed over since he was a friend and ally.

If a foreign nation not only condones, but actively supports (as the Taliban did) attacks on another nation it is effectively a declaration of war.

I agre with that, but that's just harboring. The Taliban was not invovled in the execution of 9/11.

The Taliban was not the source of the problem. That is more like a person that commits a crime and then they run to a friends houese to hide. Sure you can arrest the friend for harboring, and maybe that friend is also doing something else illigal, bt the fact remains that the friend was not invovled in the origional crime.