Bush Speech

[A_Wanderer]

I really liked this one when I saw the webcast, transcript is here, a true peace founded on freedom, it certainly lines up with my views.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/20040921-3.html

It was met with little applause, It is very important for all of you to realize: this is a signal from other countries that you should all vote for John Kerry. Please do not disappoint your friends at the United Nations--including, for example, France, Russia, Egypt, and Syria--who are simply waiting for more constructive leadership in Washington. Working together, you must get rid of George Bush, and then, and only then, can the US work together with such nations as a global community.

 

[stasia]

GEE COULDN'T AGREE WITH YOU MORE ON THAT!
BUSH SUCKSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS! SO DOES AUSTRALIAN P.M. JOHNNY HOWARD OR AS WE CALL HIM LYING RODENT!!

 

[Klaus]

Israel should impose a settlement freeze, dismantle unauthorized outposts, end the daily humiliation of the Palestinian people, and avoid any actions that prejudice final negotiations.

Yeah, nice words but he's allready negotiating with Israel about softening that freeze and he supports the wall which is a prejudice final negotiations.

I'm not sure why he tells one thing to the public and negotiates about the oposite. Well - maybee it's because of the election time - he tells every single person what he wants to hear
This would also explain why he wastes the time to "sell" his old decisions instead of working on an international coalition against terror at the UN

 

[A_Wanderer]

My fine sarcasm is obviously lost on some who genuinely believe that a country like Syria is interested in liberty. Down with Marksism and up with the Liberal parties common sense agenda.

Also I think that Bush has the most solid support for Israel than any president ever. He is a man who understands that terrorism against Israelis is still terrorism. Introducing a freedom fund will no doubt show the world the UN terror enablers for who they really are and finally force a settlement (once Arafat is rotting underground).

 

[indra]

My fine sarcasm is obviously lost on some who genuinely believe that a country like Syria is interested in liberty. Down with Marksism and up with the Liberal parties common sense agenda.

Also I think that Bush has the most solid support for Israel than any president ever. He is a man who understands that terrorism against Israelis is still terrorism. Introducing a freedom fund will no doubt show the world the UN terror enablers for who they really are and finally force a settlement (once Arafat is rotting underground).

Bush won't accomplish anything except to make a bigger mess and make US citizens and westerners alike even more hated worldwide. Like him if you wish, but the man is worse than worthless.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I respectfully disagree, as I have made abundantly clear in my other posts I disagree with his social agenda but he hits the nail on the head when he states that liberty ensures peace. Fighting to spread and preserve freedom must be the driving force behind the US foreign policy, failure to ensure its success guarantees annihilation. Lets see some liberals who stand for liberty!

 

[Klaus]

"Fighting to spread and preserve freedom" sends one bad message to many regimes of the world
"Let's develop nuclear weapons before Mr. Bush want's to "liberate" our land"

 

[A_Wanderer]

As opposed to their peaceful nuclear aspirations rogue states had under Clinton?

The world is fucked, I do not think that cutting deals with Mullahs and Autocrats will fix it. The IAEA is dropping the ball on Iran, nobody respects the UN at all, this is because it is a weak organization that is more interested in preserving the status quo than changing the world.

 

[indra]

Originally posted by A_Wanderer removing
I respectfully disagree, as I have made abundantly clear in my other posts I disagree with his social agenda but he hits the nail on the head when he states that liberty ensures peace. Fighting to spread and preserve freedom must be the driving force behind the US foreign policy, failure to ensure its success guarantees annihilation. Lets see some liberals who stand for liberty!

Of course, you don't live here, so you don't have to deal with his domestic policies.

And I do stand for liberty, but I don't see Dubya or his half-baked policies gaining liberty or peace for anyone. And he is removing or preventing it for many. He's just playing cowboy.

 

[Klaus]

A_Wanderer
I don't think that "Rambo-like" politics is helpful either, i agree to Sir Ivor here:
"Bush is al-Qaeda's best recruiting sergeant."
The current administration is messing up the mid east and they hope that everything will work out fine in the future. If it won't fix itself there is no plan b

 

[A_Wanderer]

Of course Islamist terrorism in the future will all be Bush's fault because the middle east was the pinnacle of peace and harmony before Bush embarked on the WoT, it makes so much sense doesn't it. By accepting that the Middle East was a threat to US National Security and taking direct action to shift the dynamics of the region Bush is securing the US interests in the long term, that being energy security and the annihilation of Islamism as a viable political force.

9.11. was a result of ignoring the danger and accepting the world for what it is, it would be a tremendous miscalculation to assume that inaction could deliever any solution other than an even more devastating attack by Islamist terror groups. Bush has effectively depacitated Al Qaeda's leadership and has begun to put pressure on the financiers. If one ends the interference hostile governments such as Iran and Syria within Iraq the chance of success will rise. A second term Bush administration would be prepared to allow an IAF strike against Irans nuclear aspirations and would definitely be more ambitious when dealing with the Israeli / Arab conflict. A successful resolution to these problems could pave the way forward for the ME and set the scene for the next phase.

A nightmare scenario is seeing countries like Pakistan falling under political Islam - every effort must be made to halt nuclear proliferation, especially in Islamic countries - the ideology of the Islamists ensures that first strike nuclear attacks would be a real threat. Nobody can sit on their hands when it comes to this, the US must seek out its national interest where it sees it, the basic truth is the world doesn't like you very much and never will, forget about the UN ever helping out because they are slaves to the "international community" and will make sure that any genocides are given diplomatic right of way and any tin-pot dictators can secure nuclear weapons unimpeded but will grind their heels into the ground if the US ever wanted to do something about it. Your enemies have killed American citizens for decades, they were attacking when Clinton was president and continued attacking, either fight them and their ideology or suffer the concequences. There can never be a diplomatic solution against terrorism.


Note to Indra - there are many Afghans and Iraqi's who would strongly disagree with you saying that Bush has not secured freedom for anyone.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

So will I confuse anyone if I thought both;

a) The UN is fucked and should be downgraded to just a humanitarian organisation (where it does mostly excellent work)

b) Bush must go.


Neither have the ability to do this thing right.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Agreed Earnie.

 

[Klaus]

A_Wanderer

i start to understand why you like Mr. Bush - his view of the world is as black&white as some of your postings

Earnie Shavers
Well if you downgrade the UN to a humanitarian organisation (and cultural i guess) we need an international organisation who handles international crimes which are now in a grey-zone and every country interprets this law like they want.

International Courtrooms for international crimes (like int. terrorism) could really help us now. We also need a international platform for all governments so that we can share problems before we start wars.
I know that the UN isn't perfect but the only thing worse than the UN is no international gremium like this one.

 

[A_Wanderer]

The world is not black and white, I understand the complexities of politics and the importance of compromise. I reciognize nuance within diplomacy. But when one learns about the Islamists motivations, goals and operations and actually digs a little deeper the magnitude of the threat and the response to it must become weighted. I do not like Bush because he makes the issues simple for his constituency. I respect the man because he has decided to stand up and fight against the Islamists, he is pursuing the goals of liberty in Iraq and Afghanistan, after one secures Iraq it will drive reform in Jordan and moderate Arab states and could drive a revolution in Iran where the younger generation of "holy warriors" for the Ayatollah are sick of living under political Islam. Tony Blair is a leader who has the eloquence to lay out the case explicitly and has a history of engaging in interventions for those reasons, to me intervention within Iraq was the only sane option, less people died and you have the potential to deliver a stunning victory against the hardcore Islamists.

For the better part of the last 6 years I was a true left wing moron. I watched"The Awful Truth" and laughed at the dumb yanks, talked on and on about Bush being the dumbest president ever using my favorite Bushisms (Fuzzy Math for example), I talked about "root causes" of terrorism and excused Arab terrorism against Jews because I bought the cycle of violence myth (fact: Homocide Bombers families have a higher mean annual incomes than average also there are no Christian Homocide bombers). I continued this basic idiotarianism because I refused to look at the world as it truly was, it is very easy to make excuses for violence by blaming the victim, when one decides to wake up to reality and blame the perpetrator it is a difficult thing to do.

September 11 was a massive wake up call. The first reaction is to ask what would drive people to commit such evil. I looked into it and learnt about Islamist terror throughout the latter 20th Century. The appeasement and how it was tied into US Troops in Saudi Arabia, support for Israel and the abandoning of Afghanistan to the ISI backed thugs of the Taliban. Looked into the WTC Bombing, Bojinka, Embassy Bombings and USS Cole. The pattern is stark, 9/11 was not an abberation of the normal, it was a progression of Islamist violence. Listen to what these groups are saying and it becomes abundantly clear that they seek destruction. They follow a genuine death cult, they represent the antithesis of life - we embrace life and they embrace death, it really is that plain. I am all for analyzing situations objectively and calmly but the ammount of apologists for terrorism who say that the US brought it upon themsleves. To see people refuse to accept that we are dealing with an enemy that does not want peace, that simply wants destruction and has no problem with suicide if it kills lots of innocent people. To see them carve the head off Daniel Pearl was one more explanation point on the self evident truth, we must fight them or well will die. If Islamist groups obtain WMD they will not hesitate to use them and a lot of people will be murdered. I would not want to sit around and wait to attack, the best defence is a very good offence.

The world is not black and white but one can go too far with moral relativism, things will become so grey that one ignores the difference between right and wrong and the resulting apathy allows one to stand by and let evil triumph. The US is not perfect, it has fought dirty just like its enemies but that is no reason to abandon it if it begins to pursue a policy that will undo the damage of ignoring terror and eliminate the scourge of Islamism forever.

 

[sharky]

I respectfully disagree, as I have made abundantly clear in my other posts I disagree with his social agenda but he hits the nail on the head when he states that liberty ensures peace. Fighting to spread and preserve freedom must be the driving force behind the US foreign policy, failure to ensure its success guarantees annihilation. Lets see some liberals who stand for liberty!

Liberals do stand for liberty, which is why most of us are against the Patriot Act. Yes, liberty ensures peace, but Bush's record on enforcing this is dismal.

-- Partriot Act -- how do you know you're not on the Do Not Fly list? How do you know no one is looking at your library books or video rentals? You don't.

-- Gitmo prison -- Most prisoners have been there for three years without any access to an attorney to prove they are guilty or innocent.

-- Abu Ghraib -- abusing prisoners is not showing the positive things about liberty

-- Iraq -- how would you feel if a foreign power invaded your country and wouldn't leave? you probably wouldn't feel liberty and liberated

 

[DrTeeth]

-- Partriot Act -- how do you know you're not on the Do Not Fly list?

Ask Cat Stevens

 

[namkcuR]

A_Wanderer

I wonder if you ever realize that your style of responding to every post that disagrees with you with a page-long rebuttle is annoying to some. You can have whatever opinion you want, everyone can, that's what makes freedom great. But shoving your POV down everyone's throats and implying that those who don't support the war are pro-terrorism isn't going to change anyone's mind. It's just going to annoy them.

 

[Popmartijn]

-- Partriot Act -- how do you know you're not on the Do Not Fly list? How do you know no one is looking at your library books or video rentals? You don't.

When I read that first question I also thought of him, immediately. I guess the answer is by making better music.

 

[deep]

A_Wanderer

I wonder if you ever realize that your style of responding to every post that disagrees with you with a page-long rebuttle is annoying to some. You can have whatever opinion you want, everyone can, that's what makes freedom great. But shoving your POV down everyone's throats and implying that those who don't support the war are pro-terrorism isn't going to change anyone's mind. It's just going to annoy them.

I disagree, if you are referring to his last post.

I can better understand his 'point of view' with some background on how he has arrived at his conclusions.

 

[Klaus]

I'm glad awanderer responded in a longer way - i still don't agree with him but i think in principle or view on the world isn't that different.
My mayor concern is that the current "war on terrorism" will raise 10 new terrorists while we killed one and put 3 suspects into prison for unlimited time without access to an attorney . That's why i prefer an international approach where the responsible people are put on a fair an unbiased trial to show that our (the western world) ideals of justice and liberty are reality

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I'm glad awanderer responded in a longer way - i still don't agree with him but i think in principle or view on the world isn't that different.
My mayor concern is that the current "war on terrorism" will raise 10 new terrorists while we killed one and put 3 suspects into prison for unlimited time without access to an attorney . That's why i prefer an international approach where the responsible people are put on a fair an unbiased trial to show that our (the western world) ideals of justice and liberty are reality

you mean the way they were going after terrorists for 25 years prior to 9/11?

yeah... that way worked well.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

How do you know no one is looking at your library books or video rentals? You don't.

To be perfectly honest with you I couldn't care less. The librarians know what books I take out... the pimple faced high school punk that works the counter at Blockbuster knows what videos I rent. I don't really care, because...

A) I've got nothing to hide
B) I'm not so naive that I'd actually believe that the government wouldn't get the information if they really wanted it anyways, patriot act or no patriot act.

 

[Klaus]

you mean the way they were going after terrorists for 25 years prior to 9/11?

yeah... that way worked well.

You can see what hapened with the RAF (Rote Armee Fraktion, not Royal Air Force), 1970ies in Germany.

9/11 could hapen because the secret services didn't do their job.

But if you respond in a way mr. bush did it (Talking about a Crusade, imprisoning hundreds of people of around 40 different nationalities without charge or trial, despite a major international outcry and expert condemnation of US government policy while harboring anti-iranian terrorists, Saddam's nuclear weapons, anthrax, mustard, and nerve gas, mobile chemical weapon labs etc.) don't be surprised that organisations like al-quaida don't have problems to brandmark Mr. Bush and his government as "evil"and liars

From my point of view Mr. Bush just dosn't do his job the way he should do it.
Another example: ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1192158,00.html )

Bush, in fact, does not read his President's Daily Briefs, but has them orally summarised every morning by the CIA director, George Tenet. President Clinton, by contrast, read them closely and alone, preventing any aides from interpreting what he wanted to know first-hand. He extensively marked up his PDBs, demanding action on this or that, which is almost certainly the likely reason the Bush administration withheld his memoranda from the 9/11 commission.

Maybe it's because he has problems with reading comparable his talking-handicap.But these behavious make it easy for people like Rummy or Cheney to tell him the facts partially to influense the presidents decisions.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

i'm really not afraid of people who find chopping someone's head off a just and rightous act believing that WE are evil. i'm pretty sure where i stand on that argument.

 

[Klaus]

Well i'm affraid of people who think that "bringing the war to them" is better.

They could start an attack against an US industrial chemical plant.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/22/opinion/22halperin.html?th

The dangers from chemical plant mishaps are clear. According to data compiled by Greenpeace International, the 1984 accident at an Union Carbide insecticide plant in Bhopal, India, has caused 20,000 deaths and injuries to 200,000 people. A terrorist group could cause even greater harm by entering a plant in the United States and setting off an explosion that produces a deadly gas cloud.

...

Industry groups have lobbied intensely against the Corzine legislation. While reluctant to invest in plant safety, some of these companies and their executives have found the resources to help pay for the Republican campaign.

For the Bush administration, it seems, homeland security is critical except when it conflicts with the wishes of supporters who own chemical plants.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I understand now, liberty for me but not for thee. Patriot act and other measures are not the way to solve the problem. As I said before you cannot end terror until the groups themselves are gone, otherwise you will be permanently on the defensive and in a state of perpetual war, that is not good.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Well i'm affraid of people who think that "bringing the war to them" is better.

They could start an attack against an US industrial chemical plant.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/22/opinion/22halperin.html?th

do you actually friggin believe that if we just leave them alone they'll leave us alone? are you that diluted in your thinking? they will not stop till we are 100% out of the middle east, till we drop all support for israel, and till we recognize allah as the one true god. in other words... THEY WILL NOT STOP.

they took french people hostage... the french weren't in iraq. they rallied against the war in iraq. but they took them hostage because of the headscarf law, a law which in the minds of the french government was supposedly put in place to bring peace and equality amongst all peoples, regardless of religious beliefs. fat chance buddy... do you honestly believe joe islamic fundamentalist is for the seperation of church and state? to them, church is the state, and anyone who disobeys that state shall be killed.

we were not in a war with them prior to 9/11. we should have been, but we weren't. but we supported israel. and we had troops based in saudi arabia. so they attacked us. they killed 3000 innocent people who were just showing up to work. people i knew... people who had babys on the way. people near retirement. people who had nothing to do with anything and just wanted to do their jobs.

so what if we backed out of saudi arabia? what if we dropped support for israel. and say the fundamentalists take over israel. and they have us out of the middle east. what then? you think that will be it? you think they'll be happy knowing that just across the medeteranian are a bunch of people who don't bow to mecca? do you want to reason with a person who believes that chopping off an innocent person's head is the way to get results??

these people are sick FUCKS who pevert the name of God into something small and disgusting. you talk about Bush conducting a crusade? THE TERRRORISTS are conducting a fucking crusade. they're conducting a jihad against anything that they believe to be against allah, including the US, Europe, Asia, and their own damn people!

they WILL NOT STOP. PERIOD. You appease them now, they'll be knocking on your and my doorstep tommorow.

and the people they live amongst are powerless to stop them, because they're scared. if i had to live in an area where i could be decapitated for speaking out, i'd sure as hell keep my mouth shut, too.

The violence will continue wether we are in Iraq or wether we're sitting with our thumbs up our ass here in America, oblivious to it all.

I don't want to see any Americans die. I'm saddened by the loss of American life, and the innocent civilians who have died. But ya know what? THEY are dying too. And God damn it if we as a nation ever sit back and let them take cheap shots at us, and all we do is respond with a pen and paper and a strategicly placed Tomahawk. God save us all if that day ever returns.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Strategically placed tomahawks into baby food factories I bet that brought fear into the hearts of the Islamists.

I make the point that the magnitude of the threat has been rising, the next attack may kill hundreds of thousands or even millions. You can not sit back on the defence because eventually one attack will get through. This is the fourth world war. It has been running full strength for the past decade.

 

[Jamila]

Thank you, indra, for your contributions to this thread.

With all respect to our Interferencers from other countries, I must say that it really would be inappropriate for me to talk about another country's President or PM and their policies as if I knew more about them than the people from that country.

A_Wanderer does not live in the USA and so he is not REALLY aware of how our standard of living is INCREASINGLY GOING DOWN UNDER GEORGE BUSH and how this President is MAKING THE USA MORE VUNERABLE TO ANOTHER TERRORIST ATTACK by his aggressive foreign policies.

It is easy to agree with a policy when you are not reaping the ill effects of that policy ( like increased isolation in the world community). I simply ask our Interferencers from other countries to listen more to the concerns of the U.S. posters regarding George Bush's policies.

If anyone knows the ill effects of the Bush administration's short-sighted policies, it's the American people.

I say this with all respect for everyone here.