George Bush's speech to the nation

[Hababi]

Discuss.

[lunchforthesky]

Well link us to an article then?

[Against Miik!]

It's happening...now

[lunchforthesky]

Oh right.

[Akira]

I will get a transcript later, I do not want to start listening in the middle.
I'm sure it is just "We are fighting a war against people who hate us, and we are winning. But we need more troops to win better. If we don't send more troops, people who hate freedom will attack us with nukular weapons."

[lunchforthesky]

Sounds about right to me. How does anyone take him seriously.

[Akira]

Sounds about right to me. How does anyone take him seriously.

Actually, I was joking.

They taught him to say "nuclear" better that he used to.

[lunchforthesky]

Meh, sounds spot on to me.

[Against Miik!]

If you don't watch, you aren't missing anything. He seems pretty excited about this 20,000 additional troops, but it won't do anything. General Shinseki recommended we need 500,000 troops back in 04' I think, and that is probably more like what we need, or at least before the current situations unfoiled.

[lunchforthesky]

Where are these troops coming from?

I doubt its on seen as im British, actually it probably is but whatever im not watching it at 2 in the morning.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Where are these troops coming from?

I doubt its on seen as im British, actually it probably is but whatever im not watching it at 2 in the morning.

National Guard.

If he's going to send 20,000 more troops they have to start doing more...

[Criss Frantic]

"The advance of freedom is the calling of our time."

He's a madman. But I was impressed that he admitted responsibility for the past mistakes, and used the word "failed".

[dazmo]

we just saw the whole speech by accident, seems pretty much similar to every other speech about terrrrrism. except he hinted that if the iraqi's dont do anything, they're gonna pull the plug

[shaqadelic]

Lol he sent the US army to destabilized Iraq and then warn the Iraqis that the US will quit on them if they don't clean up the US' mess? That's way out there.

And bleh, I was expecting more strategy actually.

[lunchforthesky]

They dont have a clue how to solve this basically.

[Smokey D]

"The advance of freedom is the calling of our time."

He's a madman. But I was impressed that he admitted responsibility for the past mistakes, and used the word "failed".

Oh no, he's right about the importance of freedom. He's just gone the wrong way about achieving it.

[Akira]

Oh no, he's right about the importance of freedom. He's just gone the wrong way about achieving it.

Yeah, but the sentence just sounded stupid, especially from the guy whose administration gave us the PATRIOT Act.

[Aaron]

Which nation?

[Smokey D]

Bush might come off as a hypocrite, but the importance of freedom is undiminished. If I can support Martin Luther King's 'Let freedom ring from the...' I can support Bush's intention, if not his method.

[Akira]

Bush might come off as a hypocrite, but the importance of freedom is undiminished. If I can support Martin Luther King's 'Let freedom ring from the...' I can support Bush's intention, if not his method.

But no one in America denies the importance of freedom. Saying "The advance of freedom is the calling of our time" is just political masturbation. Of course it's not only Bush or Republicans who do it, but in this case he said it, and I think it was dumb. And in my mind, he is a hypocrite.

[Smokey D]

I don't see any problem with reminding people about the importance of freedom, even if it is political wankery.

[Akira]

I don't see any problem with reminding people about the importance of freedom, even if it is political wankery.

No one needs to be reminded. Again, I know all politicians do it, I just think it is a waste of time.

[Against Miik!]

I don't see any problem with reminding people about the importance of freedom, even if it is political wankery.

Seemingly we sacrifice our own freedoms to fight for the freedom of Iraq. I'm not one of those conspiracy theory police state nut jobs. But it has been happening, even if very subtly. I do see a problem with that.

[Criss Frantic]

I understand your supporting the importance of freedom. I support it too.

But do you really think that Bush is just helping the Iraqi people out of the kindness of his heart? He's just trying to cover his ***. Martin Luther King was committed to and truly believed in the freedom he was promoting.

I just don't believe that it is the calling and duty of US citizens to impose their "freedom" on other nations.

[Smokey D]

No one needs to be reminded. Again, I know all politicians do it, I just think it is a waste of time.

If you're content with a lack of freedom and are unwilling to work towards achieving greater freedom, I'd say you need reminding.

Of course, this doesn't mean we need to rush headlong into disastrous and badly thought out campaigns based on generalized ideologies or anything.

I do see a problem with that.

That's something quite different, however.


But do you really think that Bush is just helping the Iraqi people out of the kindness of his heart? He's just trying to cover his ***. Martin Luther King was committed to and truly believed in the freedom he was promoting.


I don't really care what his motivation was. If he had been able to achieve freedom in Iraq without the catastrophe he's unleashed, I would be shouting his virtues from the rooftops. It's unfortunate that his stated goals and his methods were so remarkably incompatible.

[Against Miik!]

That's something quite different, however.



I fail to see how it is. He is, after all, the leader of the United States, not Iraq. He has done no good for either, but has committed more of his time to screwing up Iraq. It seems to be his number one priority over the U.S. This may be a blessing in disguise, but is still a little concerning.

[Criss Frantic]

He never wanted to achieve true freedom in Iraq. He invaded because it was in his interest.

[Smokey D]

Reminding Americans and the world of the importance of freedom is not the same as taking away the freedoms of Americans and one does not in anyway entail the other.

However, your point raises an interesting question. If great freedom could be achieved for more people with the temporary suppression a little freedom for some, would it be justified? As in, the US restricted some freedoms in WWII but by doing so allowed for the expansion of far greater freedoms for lot more people and eventually restored the freedoms it had suppressed. Is this, in the greater scheme of things, justified?

He never wanted to achieve true freedom in Iraq. He invaded because it was in his interest.

This isn't really relevant at all. If his agenda and the peaceful and viable freedom of Iraq intersected, I'd be extremely happy for him to pursue his interests.

[Akira]

If you're content with a lack of freedom and are unwilling to work towards achieving greater freedom, I'd say you need reminding.

Of course, this doesn't mean we need to rush headlong into disastrous and badly thought out campaigns based on generalized ideologies or anything.

You lost me. Who is content with a lack of freedom?
When I feel the government is taking away my freedoms I get pissed. As a kid, I can't do much else.

[Akira]

Reminding Americans and the world of the importance of freedom is not the same as taking away the freedoms of Americans and one does not in anyway entail the other.

However, your point raises an interesting question. If great freedom could be achieved for more people with the temporary suppression a little freedom for some, would it be justified? As in, the US restricted some freedoms in WWII but by doing so allowed for the expansion of far greater freedoms for lot more people and eventually restored the freedoms it had suppressed. Is this, in the greater scheme of things, justified?



This isn't really relevant at all.

Wait, now are you supporting Japanese internment?

[Smokey D]

If you're not actively working towards the expansion of freedom, then you're complacent or ignorant. Reminding people of its importance is a remedy against this.

Wait, now are you supporting Japanese internment?

Not necessarily. I am asking under what circumstances, if ever, is the temporary suppression of some freedom justified.

[Akira]

If you're not actively working towards the expansion of freedom, then you're complacent or ignorant. Reminding people of its importance is a remedy against this.



Not necessarily. I am asking under what circumstances, if ever, is the temporary suppression of some freedom justified.

What are you talking about? I am 16 years old. What am I supposed to do?

And how does someone who have no qualms suppressing freedom have the right to remind us that freedom is important?

[Smokey D]

What are you talking about? I am 16 years old. What am I supposed to do?

Petition, join organisations that can do something, pester your parents etc. There's a lot.

And besides, it's not like this speech is specifically addressed at you.


And how does someone who have no qualms suppressing freedom have the right to remind us that freedom is important?

Because they aren't inconsistent.

[Against Miik!]

Reminding Americans and the world of the importance of freedom is not the same as taking away the freedoms of Americans and one does not in anyway entail the other.

However, your point raises an interesting question. If great freedom could be achieved for more people with the temporary suppression a little freedom for some, would it be justified? As in, the US restricted some freedoms in WWII but by doing so allowed for the expansion of far greater freedoms for lot more people and eventually restored the freedoms it had suppressed. Is this, in the greater scheme of things, justified?



This isn't really relevant at all.

It's very relevant. We are talking about the overall morality of the Bush Administration. I can see your point, to an extent. I just fail to see how the happiness of an arbitrary(by arbitrary, I mean we could have gone into any country ruled by tyranny) country halfway around the world should be of our concern when I can't afford college, I won't any monetary safety net when I retire, my grandparents can barely afford there prescriptions, and I am living in an increasing dumber and fatter and intolerant nation. Its great to help others, but not a the cost of not being able to fix your own problems.

[Akira]

Petition, join organisations that can do something, pester your parents etc. There's a lot.

And besides, it's not like this speech is specifically addressed at you.


I don't need to pester my parents, they are liberals. I worked the polls at the last election. I keep up on politics. I am as active as I can be.

Because they aren't inconsistent.

I don't think I get what you mean.

[Smokey D]

It's very relevant. We are talking about the overall morality of the Bush Administration. I can see your point, to an extent. I just fail to see how the happiness of an arbitrary(by arbitrary, I mean we could have gone into any country ruled by tyranny) country halfway around the world should be of our concern when I can't afford college, I won't any monetary safety net when I retire, my grandparents can barely afford there prescriptions, and I am living in an increasing dumber and fatter and intolerant nation. Its great to help others, but not a the cost of not being able to fix your own problems.


Well, that again is quite different to what Bush is talking about.

I would argue that freedom from oppression is always going to be more significant than freedom from financial insecurity. This is, however, my opinion and I can't really make you accept it unless you share my basic understanding of the world.



And besides, it's not like this speech is specifically addressed at you.
I don't need to pester my parents, they are liberals. I am an active member of my school's Young Democrats club, and I worked the polls at the last election. I am as active as I can be.

Evidently his speech doesn't apply to you.

I don't think I get what you mean.

He is perfectly able to remind people about the necessity of freedom while simultaneously denying other people their freedom. It's disingenuous and manipulative, but they are not in fact mutually opposed possibilities.

Lots of people stress the importance of freedom without any qualms about keeping criminals imprisoned.

[Akira]

Well, that again is quite different to what Bush is talking about.

I would argue that freedom from oppression is always going to be more significant than freedom from financial insecurity. This is, however, my opinion and I can't really make you accept it unless you share my basic understanding of the world.

Financial insecurity?
We are definitely not understanding each other.

I am talking about oppression such as using the PATRIOT Act to throw Arab-Americans into jail.

[Smokey D]

Financial insecurity?
We are definitely not understanding each other.

See the edit.

[Akira]

See the edit.

Of course he can do it, I am arguing that it is wrong.

[Smokey D]

Why? If we accept the inherent goodness of freedom, why is it ever wrong to argue for the expansion of freedoms?

[lunchforthesky]

because you can see that the real consequence wont be a promotion of freedom but will be mass political instability throught the region?

[Against Miik!]

It's more complicated than that. I believe there was one point, before the whole situation was messed up, when it was about freedom. Nobody could have foreseen this disaster, and its to late to push it under the rug.

Well, that again is quite different to what Bush is talking about.

I would argue that freedom from oppression is always going to be more significant than freedom from financial insecurity. This is, however, my opinion and I can't really make you accept it unless you share my basic understanding of the world.

I completely get it. Things could be worse. The fact that someone can't afford a new cellphone is hardly any problem compared to someone who can't speak there mind in a public forum for fear of being arrested. It's just that we have our problems and they have theres. If you want to help every oppressed country and neglect every developed one, why not just form a global communist state? It would make think much easier. Is it really worth pouring everything we have into this? Billions of dollars and thousands of lives?

Actually, i'm just an opinionated moron. I know I would be talking completely differently if we were winning this struggle. If would be a humanitarian effort, not a war. It's just hard to look at the situation as a whole and say what we are doing over there is a good thing, and i'm willing to give up a little for that. Because i'm generally that kind of person. I would be willing to give up something relatively insignificant to someone else happy. But this would be like me giving someone a gift and forget to tell them it explodes or something.

[Smokey D]

It's just that we have our problems and they have theres.

Of course. I do think it is America's power, however, to do a lot of good for the world and still solve the majority of its problems.

If you want to help every oppressed country and neglect every developed one, why not just form a global communist state?

Because communism's silly.

Is it really worth pouring everything we have into this? Billions of dollars and thousands of lives

I have argued that the methods employed were completely flawed and not likely to achieve the result we need or want.


Actually, i'm just an opinionated moron. I know I would be talking completely differently if we were winning this struggle. If would be a humanitarian effort, not a war. It's just hard to look at the situation as a whole and say what we are doing over there is a good thing, and i'm willing to give up a little for that. Because i'm generally that kind of person. I would be willing to give up something relatively insignificant to someone else happy. But this would be like me giving someone a gift and forget to tell them it explodes or something.

Well, as much as I'd probably disagree with it at the time, I would like to think I'd be willing to give up something reasonably significant if the stakes were high enough.

[Akira]

Why? If we accept the inherent goodness of freedom, why is it ever wrong to argue for the expansion of freedoms?

Aren't you supposed to lead by example?

[DBoons Ghost]

I would like someone to name one situation in which any country in the history of the world acted in the interest of humanity when doing something for another country.

You won't ever.

Why would the US help Iraq if there was nothing to gain? This is about freedom, but more economic freedom to benefit a greater good. Bush really don't care about the Iraqi people, and neither do any of you.

[lunchforthesky]

Going to war agains tthe Nazi's maybe, although at the time it wasn't done to save Jews or Germans it was done purely for strategic reasons.

[Carrionshine]

Anyone else a bit alarmed by this part of the speech?

"....This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops.We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq. We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence sharing - and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region..."

Could he be indicating war with Iran and Syria? I dont see how deploying another carrier strike group and threatening to "seek and destroy" the networks funding insurgents could point to a diplomatic agenda.

Seemingly we sacrifice our own freedoms to fight for the freedom of Iraq. I'm not one of those conspiracy theory police state nut jobs. But it has been happening, even if very subtly. I do see a problem with that.

What exactly is it that makes you not believe the claims of a police state emerging in the US? We show enough signs of moving in that direction to discredit any remark of this being nothing more than conspiracy theory bullshit.

As someone else pointed out, in previous wars it has been necessary to suspend domestic freedoms for the sake of fighting the war. Those wars, however, were against a defined enemy and were strategically fought in order to be won as soon as possible. Once they were over, freedom was restored. The War on Terror is different. It is clear that the government is not having any intentions in ending it soon. Military action in the Middle East that makes the US look like an evil empire in the eyes of ME people is EXACTLY what Bin Laden and any terrorist would have hoped for in attacking America. It's obvious to anyone that military action only stregnthens the islamic extremist movement. As stupid as Bush and Co. seem, I seriously doubt they themselves know this too. Politicians admit terrorism will never end. This war is completely global. We will be locked fighting someone for generations and generations. Think a police state wont emerge then? Say we have another attack on our homeland, do you think in turn our government would impose a larger policing force and more restrictions on our freedoms? I do! Call me a conspiracy nut all you want. But I do see a real threat of a police state in America sometime in the future.

[lunchforthesky]

Iran is understandable, not going to war, but a dislike of them.

but Syria really aren't that bad, no worse than a lot of other places.

Despite the attrocities of his regime, Sadamn really held the balance of power in the middle east, he kept Iran in check.

[Carrionshine]

Actually, I think the number of people Saddam killed is just a tad bit higher than the 1.5 million people that died as a result of sanctions imposed by the US since 1990. That's not even including the casualties from the first and second Gulf War. We've been treating Iraqi's like a booger for almost 17 years now.

[lunchforthesky]

I think America has surpassed the number of Iraqis killed by Sadamn when you count the sanctions, the bombings under Clinton and the current war, although i could be wrong.

[RNR]

"....This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops.We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq. We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence sharing - and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region..."

.


It seems to me that that's a good reason to go to war.

[White Riot!]

I think America has surpassed the number of Iraqis killed by Sadamn when you count the sanctions, the bombings under Clinton and the current war, although i could be wrong.

Not to mention the CIA gave WMD tech to the bath party

[PERFECTXDARK]

Hes such a moron.

[Carrionshine]

It seems to me that that's a good reason to go to war.

I've tried looking for real evidence that Iran really sponsors terrorism in Iraq. All the terrorist groups I found that were Iranian sponsored were only in based in Lebanon, and Syria. Then again, I may not be quite a search master. Can anyone find me some conclusive evidence of this?

http://www.tkb.org/Home.jsp
This website(AKA the most awesome website eva) is a terrorism knowledge base. It has just about every terrorist event I can think of d0cumented. Out of the 40 pages of terrorist attacks in Iraq, the whole majority were unknown enemy attacks. Do you think they really dont know? I mean, they have to know. What is there to conceal? If you have damning evidence that points to Iran supporting terror then show us? I cant believe people are willingly conned into a war with Iran when it is common knowledge that the excuse for Iraq was complete utter bullshit. Iran seems way more threatening than Iraq ever was, yes, that is certain. I dont see how moving into Iran is going to solve anything in Iraq. To bring peace and stability, we must have war with not 1 but 2 more countries in the region? No, sorry, I dont buy it. Anyone who does deserves what will come in result of the war.

Iran is completely surrounded by US forces in the East(Afghanistan), West(Iraq), and of coarse lets not forget those strike forces in the gulf. As nutty as Iranian's leader(who's name I dont remember) may seem or really is, I doubt he would do anything to provoke the complete destruction of his own country. How convinient that the next threat to us is right in between the previous 2 countries we invaded. But I guess it's ALL in the name of fighting terrorism and spreading democracy and freedom because we love it so damn much. :chug: Our government isnt out to take over land and resources, that's outragous! What country in history would ever do that?:rolleyes:

This nation needs to wake the **** up.

[VomitStainedCretin]

Invading Iran considering the present situation in the Middle East would be profoundly retarded. For one thing, its over 4 times the size of Iraq with over 3 times the population. I dont know how many troops would the US need to control that much territory but Im guessing at least a few hundred thousand. Plus the Iranian army is huge - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_total_troops

[irishslappop]

http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?f=00&g=bd2234c5-fd27-41eb-84b7-c62e0e38645b&p=News_Comment%20-%20Analysis&t=c1149&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16583889/&fg=


^^ this is all there is to it.

[ringworm]

as much as some of his statements are accurate, Keith Olbermann is as guilty as Fox News for stirring up his supporters with biased opinions

[Akira]

as much as some of his statements are accurate, Keith Olbermann is as guilty as Fox News for stirring up his supporters with biased opinions

How about you actually provide specifics instead of making a blanket statement about him in general?

[spitfirejunky]

as much as some of his statements are accurate, Keith Olbermann is as guilty as Fox News for stirring up his supporters with biased opinions

Yeah, which is it?

[irishslappop]

as much as some of his statements are accurate, Keith Olbermann is as guilty as Fox News for stirring up his supporters with biased opinions

he is what we need. we need to stop being such pussies about this horrid presidency, get proactive, and kick his *** out.

What happened to the days when if a leader was screwing the country over the people hung his *** in town square?

[Krabsworth]

What happened to the days when if a leader was screwing the country over the people hung his *** in town square?

yeah they passed by sry

[Smokey D]

Aren't you supposed to lead by example?

It helps, but it's certainly not the only way.

ran is understandable, not going to war, but a dislike of them.

but Syria really aren't that bad, no worse than a lot of other places.

Despite the attrocities of his regime, Sadamn really held the balance of power in the middle east, he kept Iran in check.

Syria is reasonably bad. Iran might be building a nuclear bomb but Syria has far greater oppression of political dissent.

[ringworm]

How about you actually provide specifics instead of making a blanket statement about him in general?

well, first off he said Bush declared War on Iran, I'll admit, while I took it threatening (Bush's statements), it's not accurate to go further than that much like Fox stirs up terrorism support, other outlets bang their chest to it's viewers

is there even a news source out there that only reports news without leaning one way or another? honest question?

he is what we need. we need to stop being such pussies
which is exactly why we're in the shape we are now, too many pussies have been able to get a foothold into government activities, it can no longer efficiently operate

[Akira]

well, first off he said Bush declared War on Iran, I'll admit, while I took it threatening (Bush's statements), it's not accurate to go further than that much like Fox stirs up terrorism support, other outlets bang their chest to it's viewers

is there even a news source out there that only reports news without leaning one way or another? honest question?

I think I missed him saying we had actually declared war on Iran? :confused:
To paraphrase America: The Book:
In today's bleeding heart jew and gay-run media, is objectivity truly possible? Please state your answer without showing bias towards one side.