Bush's Speech re: AIDS in Africa (SuperMerged MegaThread)

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Plez vote on how you felt about GWs State Of Union Address

  • Convincing- Im w GW.

    Votes: 8 26.7%
  • I enjoyed The Speech and am now readjusting my views.

    Votes: 1 3.3%
  • GW is a clown.

    Votes: 15 50.0%
  • Iam still a Bush Hater.

    Votes: 6 20.0%

  • Total voters
    30
Status
Not open for further replies.
diamond said:

I do know this, as a fact, that several terrorist groups, communist groups, disident groups are being financed and paid to attend these demonstrations by Iraq and other extremist and terrorists organizations.:|

Oh god, diamond. :huh: :huh: And just where are you getting this information, hmmm? From your "people?" :huh: :huh: :huh:
 
Agts-
pub and gvox-

CIA
FBI
and
IDI

btw IDI=
I.nternal
D.iamond
I.nvestagations..:angry:

thank u-

db9
 
Last edited:
diamond said:
i do not like care for how this poll is shaping up:down:

Why? Because people disagree with you?

Because you want everyone to vote "I agree with GW" ?

Why do you even bother then if you dont want peoples opinions.
 
diamond said:

I do know this, as a fact, that several terrorist groups, communist groups, disident groups are being financed and paid to attend these demonstrations by Iraq and other extremist and terrorists organizations.:|

If its a fact, I want to see proofs for this fact.

I don?t know about it.

But the same argument was made by my government against people who were demonstrating against it.

Against a government, btw, that had a member who visited Saddam Hussein personally (maybe to talk about weapons deals or what?).

So pls tell which document of the FBI and CIA has proved that to you (and what would the CIA have to do with that?)
 
diamond said:

:up:



This Poll was never to be taken seriously.... :huh:

However, this poll should-

USA/Gallop Poll , regarding "overall reaction" of Speech,
ppl polled were-


-50 % were very positive
-34% were somewhat positive
-11% -somewhat negative
-3% very negative
-2%-other):dance:




DB9
Sicy plez refer to the above post.
If this were a serious thread I would have structured the questions differently.
Most ppl understood that.
I do like that some ppl said nice things about our President.
This gives me satisfaction, and the real reason I posted.

Hiphop-
I read several stories on various newsites.
There out there, I dont feel like retrieving them.
My word is good, the stories are there.

DB9
 
diamond said:
I do know this, as a fact, that several terrorist groups, communist groups, disident groups are being financed and paid to attend these demonstrations by Iraq and other extremist and terrorists organizations.:|

Oh boy. Diamond, you sound sort of like Tessa Jowell (she's the culture secretary in the UK) who wants to ban an anti-war demo in Hyde Park because it'll be muddy and the grass might get all messed up. :scream:
 
Oh, and I couldn't vote because I don't agree with Bush, even after the speech, but I'd prefer to make a more constructive comment than simply calling him a clown :p
 
diamond said:

Hiphop-
I read several stories on various newsites.
There out there, I dont feel like retrieving them.
My word is good, the stories are there.

DB9

Stories on newssites are not necessarily facts.

First you told those are facts.

Then, that you got FBI sources (the CIA still mixes in domestic affairs?).

Then you say its news stories.

Next time it will be the parrots.

Are you trying to entertain me? :huh:

Tsah tsah diamond. :wink:
 
Bush's Speech just now...mixed feelings

Well it was certainly a nice speech, pushed all the right buttons, and I'm glad that at least in principle he is moving on this.

Many parts of his speech I swore could have been directly contributed by Bono - YAY BONO!!! :up: :wink: :yes: :love: :heart:

However, I'm not impressed with the details of the plan.

In terms of sheer numbers of people who will live or die because of any given threat, AIDS seems to me to be the largest threat on the planet (well aside from a nuclear holocaust).

WILATW right now, I see 2 very real threats to world security, and one potential.

They are, in my opinion, ordered as follows:

1. AIDS - this disease is killing and will kill thousands DAILY. It is not a potential threat, or one that can develop down the road, it is one that is already devastating a continent and many parts of the world. It should be viewed as PUBLIC ENEMY No. 1.

2. North Korea - N Korea, regardless of their not having invaded another country or breached any UN resolutions blah blah etc etc, is rapidly, if not already, acheiving nuclear superpower status. Not only are they doing that, they are threatening the world with them. They hold mass call-to-arms rallies in their public squares. They could in a very short time obliterate hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives in their immediate vicinity and at least 2 or 3 major North American centres.

And now for the *potential* threat to world security: Saddam Hussein and Iraq. They could possibly have a serious WMD in 1-5 years. WHether they have chemical warheads or not is a talking point, sure, but before we started making noise about it, were they threatening nations with their use? No.

So why is it that this AIDS plan doesn't start for another 11 months? Why only $2B in year one?

Forget about the UN resolutions for a sec to try to keep an open mind (so if you plan on doing a silly cut and paste of your other arguments STING, just skip this thread).

BILLIONS will be wasted on a war with a country that is virtually powerless right now anyways. Coalition forces already have the North and South of Iraq tightly wrapped up and daily bomb Iraqi installations anyways.

Those same BILLIONS of dollars could go right now, TODAY, January 31, 2003, to start the initiative TODAY, and save hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives in the next 11 months.

Why wait 11 months? Maybe someone who is more up on the AIDS statistics can respond and post up how many more will die in the next 11 months because we waited almost another year.

As Bush said, THIS IS AN EMERGENCY! It's a pandemic. THe plan needs to be enacted on an emergency basis, now, and the bulk of the money should be spent now, not gradually. Get the treatments over there and then start the 'faith based abstinence' initiatives etc.

If a flood or earthquake happens and creates an emergency, we dont wait a year to fly humanitarian supplies in.

So lets start treating this as an emergency. TODAY.
 
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:


1-Stories on newssites are not necessarily facts.


2-Next time it will be the parrots.

3-Are you trying to entertain me? :huh:

4-Tsah tsah diamond. :wink:

1-in the stories they cited cia/fbi mostly fbi.

2-good one.

3-yes,you and others, partially true.

4-u are almost sexy:angry:

DB9
 
gabrielvox said:

BILLIONS will be wasted on a war with a country that is virtually powerless right now anyways. Coalition forces already have the North and South of Iraq tightly wrapped up and daily bomb Iraqi installations anyways.

Those same BILLIONS of dollars could go right now, TODAY, January 31, 2003, to start the initiative TODAY, and save hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives in the next 11 months.

Why wait 11 months? Maybe someone who is more up on the AIDS statistics can respond and post up how many more will die in the next 11 months because we waited almost another year.

11 months averaging 30 days each times 6,500 Africans dying and 9,500 new infections every day =
2,145,000 dead, 3,135,000 infected

It's estimated a war with Iraq would cost $9-12 billion a month.

I agree with you.
 
Sicy said:
Yes but how many Bush's speech threads do we need?

I would like to respectfully suggest that I strongly object to the merging of my post with Diamond's poll:

- Diamond's poll is a 'loaded' poll and as such hasn't really generated any decent discussion specifically about the AIDS pandemic, which is what I'm dealing with

- The poll is based on the State of the Union speech, which was a general speech on alot of issues, Iraq, AIDS, economy, etc.

- My post is based specifically on GW's speech TODAY, different speech, wholly about the AIDS initiative.


Therefore I submit it is appropriate to leave the two separate.

Kristie thanks for the stats, very well put.
 
Last edited:
Gabrielvox,

Attempting to minimize the threat from Iraq or mis-characterizing the threat, will not make it go away or change the fact that the world must deal with it or suffer the catastrophic consequences of not properly dealing with Iraq.

North Korea is making threats to other countries around it. But North Korea has been making threats to other countries around it for 50 years! This is how the North Koreans communicate, but you cannot take these statements as being literal as the past 50 years has shown. Tell me one thing that North Korea is doing today that they were not doing or not attempting to do, 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago?

North Korea has had enough Conventional Artillery to kill hundreds of thousand if not millions of people in Seoul South Korea for nearly 40 years now. They have had Nuclear weapons for over a decade.

The difference with North Korea and what makes them less of a threat than the current Iraqi regime is BEHAVIOR! The USA, China, Russia, France, United Kingdom, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea all have Nuclear Weapons. But these countries have not behaved on the international scene the way Iraq has by unprovoked invasions and attacks on 4 different countries over the past 20 years! Again it is not mere possession of the weapons that is the main threat, it is the possession of such weapons PLUS Behavior that is the threat.

The past 50 years has demonstrated that North Korea is no where near the threat of Saddam's regime in Iraq. The problem with North Korea is a different one from Iraq and is currently being handled properly given the unique situation on the Korean pennisula.

"were they threatening nations with their use? No."

Not only has Iraq threatened other nations with the use of WMD but it HAS USED WMD AGAINST ANOTHER COUNTRY! Iraq used Chemical weapons against Iran multiple time through out the Iran/Iraq war with varying degrees of success on the battlefield situation, but always with devastating results for for any civilians in proximity to these Chemical weapons attacks. In addition, Iraq has used Chemical weapons on a mass scale against its own civilian population.

The fact that Iraq has chemical and Bio weapons is not just a talking point, its a fact! 30,000 chemical and Bio artillery shells, Thousands of tons of Anthrax and VX Nerve Gas. Scud Missile production capability and the range to hit cities in Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. Iraq is not a potential threat, it is a threat now, with the potential of being a much greater threat in the future. But the international community has the power to stop this greater threat from becoming a reality. It makes no sense to stand by and let a threat, that could eventually kill tens of millions of people, grow and materialize.

It is not a waste of money to destroy and prevent a threat that could cause so much catastrophic damage in the middle east and around the world! Currently Iraq has essentially broken free of sanctions with smuggling with neighboring countries every year worth over 4 Billion dollars and growing. Russian, French, and Chinese arms makers are awaiting the day when sanctions are gone and they can flood Iraq with all kinds of new weapons systems in return for Saddam's vast amount of money which he gets from Iraq's oil. Iraq is currently smuggling in components for its WMD program with the successful smuggling operations that have been going on for the past several years. The boming of Iraqi instalations in the south is only against anti-aircraft sites that fire on coalition aircraft, it does nothing to inhibit Iraq's WMD capability or the smuggling that is allowing that capability to grow!

Iraq is far from being virtually powerless right now and is a growing threat that if not dealt with now, will have catastrophic consequences for the world in the future. Waiting to act until the threat has fully materialized will be to late and will have serious consequences for the whole world.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom