Mr. Bush: What kind of a statement is this??? - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-26-2002, 06:53 PM   #1
War Child
 
Vorsprung's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 976
Local Time: 06:04 AM
Mr. Bush: What kind of a statement is this???

Forigive me for not recalling the exact quote but this is an excerpt of what president bush stated today to justify an attack on Iraq.

ďItís long been proven that iraq supports and has close connections with terrorist organizations and that there are Al Qaeda terrorists in IraqĒ

Now this kind of propaganda makes me sick? Why? Well, because to everyone who doesnít listen carefully this quote suggests that Iraq and Al qaeda are connected and that they support each other. Obviously this is also why the last part of the quote was added to the speech. To appeal to the fear of Al Qaeda amongst american and other western citizens.
Now why does this make me sick? Because it is highly improbable that they are connected and itís even more improbable that they support each other. Al qaeda is a fundamentalist muslim organization. Iraq is a secular state (with loads of muslims). Mr. Osama bin Laden himself thinks Saddam is a bad muslim and to him thatís about the worst thing you can be. On the other hand Saddam hates fundamentalists (remember the wars against fundamentalist iran and the internal civil war against fundamentalist shiites). So Saddam may an asshole, but Osama would agree with youÖÖ Now why the fuck does Mr Bush makes makes such a propagandistic statement and deliberately misleads the uncareful listening public. I know war is propaganda and you canít trust any statement from either side, but as a democratic head of state deliberately misleading the public of whom many voted for you (and he needed every vote) just doesnít feel right, to say the least.

By the way: There are also Al Qaeda terrorists in The Netherlands , Germany, United Kingdom and the USA, just to name a fewÖÖ.or should we bomb them too because of that??
__________________

__________________
Vorsprung is offline  
Old 09-26-2002, 07:47 PM   #2
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Zoomerang96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: canada
Posts: 13,459
Local Time: 11:04 PM
"why does bush make statements like this?"

to simply use every avenue he can to lead his country to war. but he wants moral up, so hes doing his best to create propaganda he can use to his advantage.

hes not doing anything new here.

but this isnt answering your question, since im sure you already agree with what im saying.

bush has been panicking since iraq has said they will allow inspectors.

if people believe in a democracy...if youd poll the world, who do you think would come out on top as being the most evil man in the world today?

you think bin laden?

id sooner bet on the man with the nice suit making his claim on world news tonite.

if bush wants war so badly, why doesnt he strap on some gear and go fight?

i cannot recal a single government that has wanted war as badly as he does in the past 60 years.
__________________

__________________
Zoomerang96 is offline  
Old 09-26-2002, 08:14 PM   #3
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:04 AM
Its sad to see some lable the truth as simply propaganda. It does not take a scientist to realize that following the invasion of Afghanistan the USA, there probably are some Al Quada in Iraq. More evidence is coming forward from those detained in America that there is a connection between Al Quada and Iraq, but not in regards to the Sept. 11 attacks.

In regards to the logic about fundamentalism and secular leaders, Saddam Hussein would not be the first secular leader to support groups that are fundamentalist in their nature, nor would Al Quada be the first fundamentalist group to recieve are seek support from a secular source in secret. The enemy of my enemy is temporarily my friend is not a new concept.

Sure there are Al quada in places like Germany, the USA, and France, and they cooperate with the USA to bring those there to justice, unlike Iraq and the Taliban. When a country uses its military and other resources to defend terrorist and refuses to hand them over, that leaves the international community only one option. When a country breaks a ceacefire agreement and refuses to abide by agreements it signed on to stop a war it started, the international community has to use force to enforce those agreements.

I'm sure there will be more evidence, which some here have been asking for in the coming weeks, but in reality no matter what is presented, they were be people that will refuse to see anything period.

All the Justification the US needs legally to invade Iraq is in the 1991 ceacefire agreement. Iraq has been in open violation of that agreement since 1998. The new Al Quada information is interesting, but its certainly not a surprise. Its also not needed to justify enforcing UN resolutions in Iraq.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-26-2002, 08:48 PM   #4
Refugee
 
rafmed's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: On the moon's belly button
Posts: 1,253
Local Time: 11:04 PM
Its sad some believe every word he says.

What is most sick is that some ask to enforce UN resolutions on Iraq by force, but turn blind when it applies to Israel. I can't but think this is hipocrit.
__________________
rafmed is offline  
Old 09-26-2002, 09:24 PM   #5
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:04 AM
Hey, prove beyond any reasonable doubt that he is lying. Israel will be able to comply with its resolutions once there is a peace treaty and its security is guaranteed. Israel has every intention of complying with UN resolutions once its security is assured. But resolutions in regards to Israel do not involve threats to international security unlike Iraq, but rather disagreements about borders following the creation of a Palestinian State. Israel has to withdraw and they know that, but their not going to withdraw until a peace agreement is signed and their country is secure from attack.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-26-2002, 09:34 PM   #6
Acrobat
 
no disk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: manhattan
Posts: 385
Local Time: 12:04 AM
well, this much is clear, Karl Rove is a genius.

he masterfully manuevered Bush and Cheney out of the harken and haliburton scandals by bringing the iraq issue seemingly out of nowhere.


Melon, glad to hear you're enjoying Boston. nice post, too.
__________________
no disk is offline  
Old 09-26-2002, 10:37 PM   #7
Acrobat
 
no disk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: manhattan
Posts: 385
Local Time: 12:04 AM
oops, wrong thread.

__________________
no disk is offline  
Old 09-27-2002, 12:14 AM   #8
Refugee
 
rafmed's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: On the moon's belly button
Posts: 1,253
Local Time: 11:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Hey, prove beyond any reasonable doubt that he is lying. Israel will be able to comply with its resolutions once there is a peace treaty and its security is guaranteed. Israel has every intention of complying with UN resolutions once its security is assured. But resolutions in regards to Israel do not involve threats to international security unlike Iraq, but rather disagreements about borders following the creation of a Palestinian State. Israel has to withdraw and they know that, but their not going to withdraw until a peace agreement is signed and their country is secure from attack.
Isn't Bush the one that is supposed to prove his acusations?

It seems that UN resolutions can be twisted to make them work in someones better interests.

Israel has intentions to comply? Maybe Iraq has the intention to comply with them once their security is assured. <--sarcasm.

And you don't think the Israel Palestina problem is a matter of international securiy? Why extremist islamics perform terrorist acts against USA? just because they are bad? or is it maybe for the US support to Israel?

I dislike Hussein as much as anyone, but Irak being an international threat, I think its something that still need to be proved, maybe is a threat to Israel. I doubt an Irak missil will land farther.

I think the only way to gain a lasting peace is to adress all the resolutions and enforce them equaly, respecting the rights of every country, and not with hipocrit politics, that only make the diferences deeper, and that give more power to extremist groups, this endanger the civilians. I believe that most people in Israel, Palestina, Irak and the US want peace, more responsabily from the leaders of this countries would help a lot.
__________________
rafmed is offline  
Old 09-27-2002, 01:10 AM   #9
Kid A
 
The Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Holy Roman Empire
Posts: 5,271
Local Time: 12:04 AM
Bush is the most evil man in the world today? well don't most of you assert the notion that Bush is just a figure head of a system, certainly he is no mastermind? at least, I have never got the indication from any of his critics here that he has any sort of intellect. now this being said, do those that prop up the "system" that Bush resides over take the blame for his being the "most evil man in the world?" certainly Bush cannot be blamed, he is merely following orders, mr marionette, so let's take the poll from there...
__________________
The Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-27-2002, 01:39 AM   #10
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:04 AM
Its seems Israel's security to you, is not very important as complying with UN resolutions that will not, in of themselves, solve the problem there. I'm sure every terrorist will adopt the cause of the Palestinians to justify their attacks against the USA or anyone else. These people have to be hunted down. Certainly all UN resolutions are important, and the United States has worked very hard to resolve the Israely/ Palestinian conflict. But it has been the Palestinians that have rejected the peace deals worked out. The Palestinians nor the Israely's have the ambitions of Saddam Hussein and his regime. Neither of them have launched completely unprovoked attacks on 4 different countries in the past 20 years. Clearly when it comes to relations with other states, Iraq is the threat, and they have failed to comply with 16 UN resolutions including a UN ceacefire agreement of 1991 that put a pause to the 1991 Gulf War.

From a legal standpoint Iraq has been at war with the United Nations because of their open violation of the 1991 ceacefire agreement since 1998. The 1991 ceacefire agreement calls for the use of force against Iraq if it the agreement is violated. From a legal stand point, a state of war exist between Iraq and the United Nations. Israel has yet to withdraw from the West Bank which was called for by the United Nations. But this is a different resolution from a ceacefire which merely pauses a war given certain conditions are met. There is nothing in the UN resolution, for Israel, that calls for the use of force against Israel to force it to comply with UN resolutions. The UN ceacefire agreement for the 1991 Gulf War does call on the use of force to bring Iraq into compliance with the terms of the of the 1991 ceacefire agreement. A state of war does not exist between Israel and the UN, because UN resolutions that Israel is in violation of don't call for that. But in Iraq they do.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-27-2002, 02:56 AM   #11
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 04:04 PM
Just a comment on Vorsprung's 1st post with this statement: ďItís long been proven that iraq supports and has close connections with terrorist organizations and that there are Al Qaeda terrorists in IraqĒ I think the whole speech would have to be seen and in context to really comment.
Bear you may have answered your own question, if he wants a war so badly, why doesnt he strap on some gear and go fight? The fact that he hasn't is worth noting. I'm sure he believes in his evidence, but there is also something holding him back.
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 09-27-2002, 03:25 AM   #12
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 06:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
All the Justification the US needs legally to invade Iraq is in the 1991 ceacefire agreement. Iraq has been in open violation of that agreement since 1998. The new Al Quada information is interesting, but its certainly not a surprise. Its also not needed to justify enforcing UN resolutions in Iraq.
Eh no... The ceacefire terms have to be upheld by the United Nations not by any country on itself. UN regulations also clearly forbid any country taking action without a resolution from the security council.

The link as presented now by Bush between Al Qaeda and Iraq is based on nothing more than statements made by so-called high ranking Al Qaeda members, who probably all have TV's in their romms by now.
__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 09-27-2002, 04:17 AM   #13
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:04 AM
The UN has already upheld and approved the language of the UN ceacefire agreement. That was done in 1991. Beaking the ceacefire requires that offensive operations be resumed against Baghdad to force compliance with the terms Baghdad agreed to in 1991.

I think UN resolutions are important and that we should seek consenses as much as possible. At the same time, a UN resolution is not required for a country to defend itself. Nor is it required to defend others. The NATO operation in Kosovo to prevent Serbs from slaughtering the muslims living there was not authorized by the UN. Please don't tell me you would have prefered that NATO had not acted in that case because they were unable to get authorization from the UN.

ABC news Nightline program had interviews with captured Iraqi intelligence officers in Kurdish controlled Iraq that confirm what was said by Al-Quada members detained. Not a surprise really though.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-27-2002, 05:12 AM   #14
War Child
 
Vorsprung's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 976
Local Time: 06:04 AM
Angela Harlem, I donít think the context of the entire speech is of any importance at all, because iím not talking about the question whether an attack on Iraq is justified. That doesnít matter to the statement I just made. Iím only talking about the addition ďand that there are Al Qaeda terrorists in IraqĒ. This is non-information. Sure there are al-qaeda terrorist in iraq but they probably do not cooperate with Iraq. Now Mr. Bush very wisely also doesnít state this. If he had any proof at all, how little it may be, he WOULD state this (because this would obviously be even better propaganda for an attack on Iraq). Therefor this means the Bush administration also agrees thereís no evidence for an Al Qaeda-Saddam connection, but they do refer to al-qaeda and make it seem thereís a strong connection simlyto mislead the public and gain public support for their actions. Now what makes me sick here is solely the misleading information that is brought out and besides that nothing. OK, Iím against an attack on Iraq, but this is NOT what Iím talking about. The Bush administration has their reasons for wanting that attack and they have a right to have that opinion (thoug I donít think that they have a right to attack Iraq, but that doesnít really matter in this case). I just donít think they have a right to deliberately mislead the public.

For anyone still doubting about what I just might have meant (english isnít my native language):

BUSH DOESNíT LIE, HE MISLEADS!!!
__________________
Vorsprung is offline  
Old 09-27-2002, 05:34 AM   #15
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 940
Local Time: 05:04 AM
What's the latest with the UN Security Council? Particularly China, France and Russia? They were not going to give the US the resolution they wanted, are they still firm on this?
India are a permanent member of the Council as well aren't they? What's their position?

If the US doesn't get the resolution they want, they'll do it anyway, I think that's pretty clear. Actually, I'm kinda bored with the whole Iraq debate here because I think the US are obviously going to do the attack no matter whether it's the right move/wrong move, right motivations/wrong motivations, they have UN backing or if every single human on this earth from every country on this earth writes a letter personally telling them not too. But my point is, I was thinking, if the US doesn't get the resolution, and strike anyway, the feared 'unilateral pre-emptive first strike', the point that is made over and over again is that other countries could use it as an excuse to do it as well, including, China/Taiwan, Russia/Chechnya-Georgia, and of course India/Pakistan. Maybe they don't want the US to get a UN resolution for other reasons? It might be a stretch, but still.

Another interesting question, I'd say no chance of it happening, but what if the US don't get their resolution, GW says 'fine the world is wrong, we are right, we're doing it anyway' and then the UN passes a resolution, that is somehow against the US doing that. If they do it, they are in breach of a UN resolution. Think they'd still do it? With their new found respect for UN resolutions?

I certainly don't think Bush is the most evil man in the world, that's ridiculous, but in a vote he may come in at #1 for 'Least Trusted' world leader. There is still very little clear reasons for not punishing Saddam in any way, not being strict on him, not threatening him, but actual all out war. Support shows that. I know here in Australia the government is very much for the idea. They've toned down the anti-Iraq war talk, and talk up the UN and a diplomatic solution now, but it's just a reaction to the polls which show that overwhelmingly Australians want at least the UN backing, and the majority want no war at all, and certainly no Australian involvement. Meanwhile Australian military officials are in the US, involved at all the highest levels of planning of an attack on Iraq. In the UK, I read that while Tony Blair is all for it, a vote within his own political party came in at something like 60-6 against a war, and the public have similar feelings to Australia. These are the US' two most supportive allies (aside from Israel).

I mean to the public, it still 'looks' like there are 3 or 4 war mad people in the US government, who have the backing of a couple of guys in the UK government, a few guys in the Australian government (not that that would ever make the news overseas), so thats about 10-15 guys all up, plus the % of strong supporters in the US public, against however many billion other people and nations around the world who rate from cautious at best, to dead against. The fact that there is such an amazingly low level of support from anyone other then maybe 3 or 4 countries, and only 3 or 4 people in those governments, is obviously not winning anybody over to the idea.
And the guys who are all for it are still making an amazingly weak argument. I mean, if George Bush had an argument this weak for a new tax, you'd be mad as hell, but it's not, it's testing the UN to it's core beliefs, starting a war that could have massive consequences.

Anyway, like I said, I'm getting over this argument. I think God himself could visit Bush or Rumsfeld or Cheney tonight and tell them not to do it, and they'd still do it. I'd rather see threads about how it will play out, both before the attack and the effect of the attack when it occurs.
__________________

__________________
TylerDurden is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com