I saw a kinder gentler GW Bush tonight.. - Page 3 - 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 10-09-2002, 06:14 PM   #41
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 06:12 PM

Tyler-
Thank you for your insightful response

DB9
__________________

diamond is offline  
Old 10-09-2002, 10:14 PM   #42
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 06:12 PM

I wanna thank all the contibutor's of this thread.
Sting
Joyful
SF
Khan
ect
ect
ect

The point of this thread was-

To show GW isnt the trigger happy person the media portays him as.
To show a genuine person who isnt anxious to launch into a war.
To show a man who is humane, the same man..as he was the days after 9-11.
To show that Iraq still has an oppurtunity to "get right" w the UN.

Time will tell.

Bono himself has saluted the American Troops in their fight on The War On Terror per The Tonight Show performance w Jay Leno, last Nov 2001. He played to the American Service Men and Women who were invited there exclusively.
He went on to say that Ireland was sending "The Guiness Boat" to fight the War On Terror.

A strike on Iraq would be only an extension of The War On Terror-if they fail to comply w the UN resolutions.
My prayer is that is doesnt come to that.

Out-
-diamond-
__________________

diamond is offline  
Old 10-09-2002, 10:30 PM   #43
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,760
Local Time: 02:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Screaming Flower
i saw it. i'm still not sold.
agreed


I think iraq is a threat...but the Bush went about it the wrong way to begin with and now has to back pedle to hard to not look like war monger. ..I do think a regime change is the best thing for iraq though.


Also three commisions tried to link saddam to al qaeda and failed to do so


now on the eve of bush wanting a to fight a war..they find these mysterious connections????



sounds a little fishy to me...and if it's true the evidence must be presented to the american ppl
V Nura is offline  
Old 10-09-2002, 10:36 PM   #44
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:12 AM
American foreign policy

Pre-empting threats, threatening pre-emption

Sep 26th 2002
From The Economist print edition


Only Saddam Hussein, and any would-be emulators, need fear George Bush's foreign policy

AP




MUCH of the time, foreign policy is made by hints, bribery, threats and, in this televisual age, soundbites. This week it was made in a pair of substantial documents—America's new “National Security Strategy”, outlining George Bush's foreign-policy thinking, and the British government's “assessment” of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The first was intended to reassure, the other to scare. The truly scary thing is that much of the reaction to these documents—in soundbites, naturally—has got them the wrong way round.

Mr Bush's “strategy”, which is the sort of thing every administration gets round to assembling, contained nothing seriously new (see article). What caught the attention, though, was one element that had been mentioned before but not fully fleshed out: the notion that, if America saw that a country or organisation was developing nuclear, chemical or biological weapons for use against it, then it would be willing to take pre-emptive action to deal with that threat. In other words, it would not wait until thousands or millions of people had been killed. Such action need not only mean war, the report stressed, and would not necessarily be done by America alone. But if a unilateral military strike were absolutely necessary, then Mr Bush said he was willing to order one.

The question is: should you be scared by that, or reassured? First of all, some distracting arguments need to be cleared away. This does not, as some say, set a “precedent” for future invasions by any Russia, China or, indeed, Iraq. Despite the fine words of the United Nations Charter deploring the use of force, dozens of its signatories have used “pre-emptive” attacks during the past half-century: the Soviet Union on many occasions, Israel, Iraq, many African countries, India, Pakistan and the United States itself (in Grenada, for example), among others. And how good it would have been for the world, most people still think, if the democracies had pre-empted Hitler back in the mid-1930s. Second, it does not entail America giving itself new “rights” or flouting existing sources of “legitimacy”: all Mr Bush has said is that, in extremis, he will act. So would many other countries, in their own extremity.

First and foremost, this is reassuring to Americans: if someone is building a suitcase nuclear bomb to be exploded in Chicago, the president will not wait for years of debate and piles of reports from international study-groups before doing something to stop it. Yet it should also reassure other people. They should be reassured by the promise that such a move is very much a last resort. But they should also be reassured by America's willingness to threaten it. For the point of the threat is old-fashioned deterrence: that by declaring your willingness to act, you will make it less likely that you will ever need to act. Such deterrence, in so far as it works, will help protect others too—especially as America, both in its general values and explicitly in this document, stands for freedom and democracy, not imperial conquest or dictatorship.



Saddam Hussein: a worked example
In the end, the basic issue is whether you trust America to act more-or-less wisely, or whether you think it (or Mr Bush personally) is in fact a Wild West cowboy. Given the careful, determined response Mr Bush gave to the terrorist attacks on September 11th, and given the fact that for all the words about “regime change” he has done nothing precipitate against Iraq, it is hard to find any evidence of cowboy tendencies, at least on his part. It ought also to be reassuring that his new security strategy is packed to the brim with idealistic language about peace and prosperity for all, and full of declarations of intent to work with allies, reinforce non-proliferation treaties, operate through multilateral organisations and so on.

But should you believe such words? Scepticism is always in order when a government speaks, especially when strategy documents thud into the world's awkward realities. Iraq does, though, offer a case-study in how things might work. For it is hard to imagine a better current example of when to consider pre-emptive action as an alternative to containment: a murderous dictator and declared enemy of America who has been building stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons for 20 years, and is trying to develop nuclear weapons too.

However, far from blundering unilaterally into an invasion on a presidential whim, Mr Bush has placed the United Nations at the heart of his strategy against Saddam Hussein. His closest ally, Britain, this week laid out in painstaking detail the evidence of Mr Hussein's weapons programmes, his deceit, his evasion of weapons inspections and his use of such weapons in the past. The dossier (see article) contained only a few new facts but much that should be scary to those unfamiliar with Mr Hussein's past record. Now, Britain and America will try to persuade the Security Council to pass a new resolution threatening force unless Mr Hussein fulfils his past promises to disarm, which over the past 11 years have been the subject of 16 UN resolutions. The threat of invasion is being used as a last-but-one resort; the threat of a unilateral invasion is only a last resort. Mr Hussein, it is to be hoped, is now scared. On this evidence, nobody else needs to be.
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-09-2002, 10:40 PM   #45
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 08:12 PM

Diamond:

I watched it and I agree with most of what he says. I hope it doesn't have to come to any large military action, but I understand that it may. I have seen it said that this is a "racist war" and that Bush is trigger happy and such; well, just as many of you are not "sold" on Bush's position, I put no monetary value in the "racist" and "trigger happy" claims. Thanks.

~U2Alabama
U2Bama is offline  
Old 10-09-2002, 10:43 PM   #46
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 06:12 PM

Arun-
I dont think the connection needs to be made.
Saddam needs to go..period, before or after Osama..

Thanks for the contributions Sting/Bama

DB9
diamond is offline  
Old 10-10-2002, 01:14 AM   #47
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,760
Local Time: 02:12 AM
well


The bush administration is saying that this is part of the war on terror


Also....if Bush sr had done this right the first time....we wouldn't need a second war with iraq. ....so you can't tell me the bush lineage is somehow doing soemthing righteous...it's just trying to correct a previous 'f*ck' up

so naturally you have to connect it..that's sorta the point.


If bush just said...." hey saddam is a f*cker..needs to go, here's the evidence"/..I'd say go ahead.



I am very upset that countries like russia and france have their heads up their ass on the iraq issue...they need to understand that iraq broke the resolutions and their need to be consequences.
V Nura is offline  
Old 10-10-2002, 01:19 AM   #48
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Arun V
Also....if Bush sr had done this right the first time....we wouldn't need a second war with iraq. ....so you can't tell me the bush lineage is somehow doing soemthing righteous...it's just trying to correct a previous 'f*ck' up
GHW Bush went as far as the UN resolutions allowed at the time. He played by the UN's rules and now we've got to finish the job.
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-10-2002, 03:21 AM   #49
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 940
Local Time: 01:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
Ms. Joyful-
Thank you for your 2 unbiased articles
If an article is pro-attacking Iraq, it's biased.
If it's against, it's biased.
So a non-biased article would have to come from an alien who just says "Iraq? I dunno."
TylerDurden is offline  
Old 10-10-2002, 03:35 AM   #50
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 12:12 PM
Big Grin

Well lordy me Tyler. If that isn't the most blatant truth someone has ever posted in here...
!
__________________
<a href=https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 10-10-2002, 10:41 AM   #51
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,961
Local Time: 08:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Bama
Diamond:

I watched it and I agree with most of what he says. I hope it doesn't have to come to any large military action, but I understand that it may. I have seen it said that this is a "racist war" and that Bush is trigger happy and such; well, just as many of you are not "sold" on Bush's position, I put no monetary value in the "racist" and "trigger happy" claims. Thanks.

~U2Alabama
just because i'm not sold, doesn't mean i think bush is racist or trigger-happy. i don't think that. i just fear that we are getting ourselves into something without thinking it fully through. at the moment i feel more threatened by al qaeda still than i do saddam. i feel like we should finish that job first. i'm not saying that saddam isn't a major threat, but i am afraid of the number of soldiers we will lose, as well as the number of innocent iraquis who will die. we can blame saddam all we want, and i agree that he is a truly evil man and is the root cause of this but our hands will not be clean when this is over. i just want to make sure we exhaust all other options before taking a military approach.


*edited because i can't spell worth a damn before 10 am.
Screaming Flower is offline  
Old 10-10-2002, 10:50 AM   #52
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,760
Local Time: 02:12 AM
I agree with flower...we gotta take care of al qaeda and there isn't a solid al qaeda saddam link.


I thinK regime change is the best hing for iraq cos we could finnaly end the sanctions which kills millions of iraqis every year ( and there is no way i want to see them lifted before saddam is out of power). in truth any war we fight with iraq will kill far fewer iraqis' than the sanctions do year after year. so that's not a foremost concern in my mind.


I really dont' feel like giving the arab world one more reason to hate us. it's just going to mean having to gight two or three more wars later.
V Nura is offline  
Old 10-10-2002, 12:43 PM   #53
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,760
Local Time: 02:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


GHW Bush went as far as the UN resolutions allowed at the time. He played by the UN's rules and now we've got to finish the job.
well we dont' impose on israel to comply with UN resolutions...why do we have to follow them???
V Nura is offline  
Old 10-10-2002, 02:35 PM   #54
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:12 AM
Resolutions in regards to Israel do not call for the use of force to resolve them. Resolutions in regards to Iraq do!

In regards to sanctions, millions of Iraqi's are NOT killed every year by sanctions. Iraq under sanctions is allowed to sell all the oil they need to purchase as much humanitarian supplies they need to prevent problems among its population. Iraq has the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world and can use this wealth to purchase any humanitarian supplies they need. I'm sure there have been Iraqi's killed over the past few years, mostly by Saddam, but there is no way to accurately verify who, where, and how certain individuals have died or been murdered, given Saddam Husseins complete control of Iraqi society.

Another point is that launching a military strike against Iraq does not take away from resources being used to fight the war on terrorism. The USA has a large enough military and intelligence services to not only fight Iraq and Al-Quada at the same time, but to safeguard against a possible North Korean invasion of South Korea, continue to police the situation in Bosnia, Kosovo and other area's, and to watch the situation between China and Tawain and still have forces available to respond to all these contingencies combined!
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-10-2002, 04:14 PM   #55
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,760
Local Time: 02:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Resolutions in regards to Israel do not call for the use of force to resolve them. Resolutions in regards to Iraq do!

In regards to sanctions, millions of Iraqi's are NOT killed every year by sanctions. Iraq under sanctions is allowed to sell all the oil they need to purchase as much humanitarian supplies they need to prevent problems among its population. Iraq has the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world and can use this wealth to purchase any humanitarian supplies they need. I'm sure there have been Iraqi's killed over the past few years, mostly by Saddam, but there is no way to accurately verify who, where, and how certain individuals have died or been murdered, given Saddam Husseins complete control of Iraqi society.

Another point is that launching a military strike against Iraq does not take away from resources being used to fight the war on terrorism. The USA has a large enough military and intelligence services to not only fight Iraq and Al-Quada at the same time, but to safeguard against a possible North Korean invasion of South Korea, continue to police the situation in Bosnia, Kosovo and other area's, and to watch the situation between China and Tawain and still have forces available to respond to all these contingencies combined!

sting we actually agreed....the argument was that bush left saddam in power cos of UN resolutions....so back then...the US should have taken saddam out. Now I brought up israel only to point out...we should have finished the job in 1991...now..it may be harder.


also..even the US congreesman that went to iraq and came back were critical of the sanctions....I think the sanctions are legit..but they aren't doing the iraqi ppl any good.
V Nura is offline  
Old 10-10-2002, 06:02 PM   #56
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 06:12 PM
This has been a nice healthy discussion.

The beginning of The Persian Gulf War the voting was ALOT closer.

I think after Saddam is removed it will be a "wake-up" call to other "up and coming" terrorists..that the civilized peaceful nations of the world are united and there is no future in reigning in fear in terror..causing them to re-examine their thinking..

Sure terror will never go away entirely, however if we do nothing they will flourish.
Sorta like pulling weeds in the garden..maintiance..stinky maintance
Not a fun job but nesecessary in our day and age..
Remove the terrorists in our world, remove the stinky weeds from our garden

Hope this analogy makes sense

-diamond-
diamond is offline  
Old 10-10-2002, 06:19 PM   #57
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 02:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
I think after Saddam is removed it will be a "wake-up" call to other "up and coming" terrorists..that the civilized peaceful nations of the world are united and there is no future in reigning in fear in terror..causing them to re-examine their thinking..
Oh it will be a wake-up call alright...
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 10-10-2002, 06:21 PM   #58
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 06:12 PM
wink

Quote:
Originally posted by DrTeeth


Oh it will be a wake-up call alright...
Dr Teeth-
You could choose to do nothing and live in fear
or
pull the weeds

DB9
diamond is offline  
Old 10-10-2002, 06:32 PM   #59
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:12 AM
Arun,

The US congressmen that went to Iraq only get to see what Saddam Hussein wants them to see, things that are a creation of Saddam himself.

At the End of The Gulf War in 1991 Iraq complied with UN resolutions by cooperating with the UN on all points. The process to comply with all resolutions was under way. It was during the Clinton administration which started in 1993, and more particular in 1998 that Iraq became in open violations of UN agreements and resolutions.
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-10-2002, 09:31 PM   #60
Refugee
 
Foxxern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Illinois, USA
Posts: 1,284
Local Time: 07:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
At the End of The Gulf War in 1991 Iraq complied with UN resolutions by cooperating with the UN on all points. The process to comply with all resolutions was under way. It was during the Clinton administration which started in 1993, and more particular in 1998 that Iraq became in open violations of UN agreements and resolutions.
So are you saying the US should have put some sort of pressure on Iraq in 1993 or 1998 when they first began to violate their sanctions? I hardly think it would have made sense back then given the circumstances. Then again, I'm not sure what has really changed between then and now regarding our relationship with Iraq.
__________________

Foxxern 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 08:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×