RATE THE SPEECH.

[Foxxern]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
I see you use quote-marks when you refer to "evil". So, does that mean that evil doesn't exist, or that merely regimes like Iraq don't qualify?

Evil exists, but we have to be careful in identifying it. I see it possibly in governments such as Iraq and Saudi Arabia. I don't see it in Iran or North Korea, two nations that have made little if any specific mentions of threat towards the US.

Also, there's a big difference between "anti-US sentiment" and an concerted effort to murder Americans. That point should be obvious; it sickens me that it isn't.

Is it obvious? Were any of the terrorists from Iran or North Korea? No? Then why were those countries singled out? Based on what is known, most of the men had origins in Saudi Arabia. And even so, to label an entire nation full of "evil" is just the pot calling the kettle black. If we really want to show that we are civilized and committed to truth and justice, we should be naming terrorist organizations as our enemies, not the ordinary people of specific countries. The terrorist groups are not bound by any political borders, and we have to be careful not to act as though they only exist in certain countries. Many of them had previously made permanent residencies in countries such as Germany, England, and even the US.

Finally, given the precision and deliberateness of the US government and military so far, I don't see any absence of reason or logic.

Precision? Tell that to the more than 5,000 Afghan civilians who have been killed in the bombing raids. That more than surpasses the total killed on September 11. I think that it is important to destroy the buildings that al-Qaeda is using but I hardly see the point of destroying homes, schools, and shops of the people of the nation. And yet I hardly ever hear anyone complaining that it is unfair to the people of Afghanistan.

Don't get me wrong. I think we need to have a military effort to get to the roots of terrorist groups and bring the leaders of these groups to trial. But what's a kid to think when his shopkeeper father is killed in a bombing raid, even though he had nothing to do with the attacks on the US? Is he supposed to believe that the US is his ally and that the war on terrorism is a good thing? We have to be careful not to make new enemies while eliminating our old ones. Otherwise, we are fighting a futile, neverending war.



------------------
Change is the only constant

[camiloj]

Originally posted by Foxxern:
Don't get me wrong. I think we need to have a military effort to get to the roots of terrorist groups and bring the leaders of these groups to trial. But what's a kid to think when his shopkeeper father is killed in a bombing raid, even though he had nothing to do with the attacks on the US? Is he supposed to believe that the US is his ally and that the war on terrorism is a good thing? We have to be careful not to make new enemies while eliminating our old ones. Otherwise, we are fighting a futile, neverending war.

This is an awesome comment, I really really hear ya Foxxern. I think this really gets the point across. And I totally agree with your comments on the slant the Media has taken since 9/11. I think the Media will do whatever will keep them in favor with the common viewer, and I think this is the slant that will keep them in favor with the tide of the nation at the moment.

Foxxern, your perspective on all of this is rare and refreshing. Thanks for adding to the dialogue.

[Lemonite]

Originally posted by hotasahandbag:
didn't watch it and won't. i quit watching any network news shortly after 9/11.

Oh Goodie.. I'm glad you're fed up too with the tiring liberal bias in the popular press.. That's great to hear! I applaud you.

L. Unplugged


[This message has been edited by Lemonite (edited 01-30-2002).]

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Originally posted by Foxxern:
Then why were those countries singled out? Based on what is known, most of the men had origins in Saudi Arabia.

Well I wonder why the US hasn't attacked Saudi Arabia. Do you think it has anything to do with the fact that the current rulers in that country aren't exactly opposed to US-owned oil companies operating in their country? Maybe it's because they place billions of dollars in bank accounts in Western countries. Interesting.

I wonder why the US is talking about an attack on Somalia. Well, they have oil reserves, as does the area of Ethiopia bordering Somalia. Interesting.

[Angela Harlem]

Is there a link for the transcript?

[Klodomir]

Here you go, luv: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...020129-11.html

[speedracer]

Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees:
Well I wonder why the US hasn't attacked Saudi Arabia. Do you think it has anything to do with the fact that the current rulers in that country aren't exactly opposed to US-owned oil companies operating in their country? Maybe it's because they place billions of dollars in bank accounts in Western countries. Interesting.

It also might be because Saudi Arabia allows our military to operate on their soil and keep tabs on Iraq.

But you're right--our current relationship with Saudi Arabia is not a good one. We help keep their corrupt dictatorship afloat while though the ordinary citizens and the terrorists despise them. The ordinary citizens despise the Saudi monarchy because they run a repressive theocracy, while the terrorists despise the Saudi monarchy because they're infidels for allowing US troops on their soil.

[Lemonite]

Originally posted by melon:
The State of the Union is just a propaganda speech. It is never about the actual state of the union and has the same amount of truth as a campaign speech: none.

His domestic agenda is horrible. He tries to run this country like a dictator, his tax plan was fiscally irresponsible, and he has no solid approach to fixing this recession, outside of tax cuts. When businesses are paying nearly no taxes anyway, from over twenty years of successive tax cuts and other corporate welfare, how can you cut them further? Next, we'll be giving them handouts.

Melon

Just a few seperate thoughts... SEPERATE

I'm not so sure that the people view it as just a 'Politics as Usual Speech'... Say ... in the way the people are thinking of Dick G.'s response.... It was more of an American Speech.

I consistently read you compare 'handing out tax cuts' as something resembling the actions of a monkey or walking phallus, but seriously, we're in a recession (A Very very small one, where actually we're on the way out of it.. YEs I'll make the claim now.. The RECESSION IS OVER.. it's on the upswing).. I don't know why Liberals are so against tax cuts, they've always worked, but they never seem to see it..
One thing is certain in a recession..You Don't Raise TAxes.. which is what the liberals want to do.....You also don't just hand out more unemployment checks.. Where does that leave you at the end of the day?

Bush Got it Right.. JOBS.

And no.. Handouts are what Ya'll are all about (Liberals).. I'm surprised you would ever even venture to use that word.

The Last thing the Liberals want is to work this economy out, They Want you to THINK they do.. But, A thriving economy.. at least under a republican watch.. Is about as appealing to the liberals as .. well, I'll get in trouble if I make some sort of joke here.. But you get the idea...

Bush a DICTATOR???? That just doesn't fly with the people now.. People see BUsh Wanting to work together with the Liberals.. He's incorporated many of the liberal ideas into his agenda.. He goes out of his way to embrace Daschle and Dick G. After their speeches, He Embraces Ted Kennedy while they work together on issues.... I'm sorry.. wait .. no I'm not, that statement is not going to carry weight with the People.. It doesn't.. Because It just doesn't appear that way.. and In politics, APpearance is REality.

You cite the increased spending in the Montage 'Why increase spending while decreasing income?'.. And it does make logical sense, but you have to look at the long term picture, Yes, there will be deficits (Though I've referenced the Ten Year SURPLUS many times in this forum), there will be a debt to pay off, (But it's a two prong attack.. and It's not the end of the world to be in debt.. The economy gets rolling.. there's more money to pay off the debt) And to add on the increased military spending.. How can you shit on an increase in military spending, where a large large amount of that money is going to Homeland Defense?

And Here's a reason why you can't.. The reason for this is that If THere were to be another Attack on America.. The Economy would fall into a huuuuge tumble and there would be no way out for a long long time.

Sooo, In raising the bar of the military, BUsh is Actually Helping the Economy.

Just wait and see, The economy is already taking a turn for the better.. Come election time.. THe liberals will not have that huge weapon they are depending on.. (A bad economy) to fire at the Republicans.

L. Unplugged

[This message has been edited by Lemonite (edited 01-31-2002).]

[This message has been edited by Lemonite (edited 01-31-2002).]

[Lilly]

I could NOT believe some of the things he was saying.

Case in point, the Phillippines. Terrorists are there and we are there fighting them. Now Bush has the fantastic and *ORIGINAL* idea! Train the Philippinos to fight for themselves. HEEEELLLLOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! Remember Ronald Reagan?! Maybe oh I dunno, THE SCHOOL OF AMERICAS!!!??? Ohhh, wait maybe it will be more like the time we trained the Afghanis to fight the Soviets with *OUR* tactics. Beep beep back the truck up, those are the same people FIGHTING US NOW!!

This training thing may seem to be a good idea, but it DOES NOT work! I cannot believe Rumsfeld wants to do this! Did they skip over the 80s and early 90s (when SOMEONE'S dad was President) in their history books? If we carry this out it will be asking for people to attack us in the future.

------------------
It's the puppets that pull the strings.

*You're very kind. Most people laugh when they see my googly eye.*

+Hilarryous. Oh, it will catch on+

[Salome]

history will teach us nothing that we don't want to learn

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it

[Achtung Bubba]

Originally posted by Lilly:
I could NOT believe some of the things he was saying.

Case in point, the Phillippines. Terrorists are there and we are there fighting them. Now Bush has the fantastic and *ORIGINAL* idea! Train the Philippinos to fight for themselves. HEEEELLLLOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! Remember Ronald Reagan?! Maybe oh I dunno, THE SCHOOL OF AMERICAS!!!??? Ohhh, wait maybe it will be more like the time we trained the Afghanis to fight the Soviets with *OUR* tactics. Beep beep back the truck up, those are the same people FIGHTING US NOW!!

This training thing may seem to be a good idea, but it DOES NOT work! I cannot believe Rumsfeld wants to do this! Did they skip over the 80s and early 90s (when SOMEONE'S dad was President) in their history books? If we carry this out it will be asking for people to attack us in the future.

And your solution is -- what, exactly?

It seems to me the only course left are sending in our own troops or doing nothing.

If we send in our own troops, those who complain now will be screaming "Vietnam" all over again.

And if we do nothing substantial, then we'll be inviting more terrorism, just as Clinton's non-responses to attacks on U.S. embassies, bases, and naval vessels did nothing to deter the terrorists from attacking our office buildings in New York.

History teaches us many things, including the simple fact that these thugs who attacked us understand one thing: brute force.

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:

And if we do nothing substantial, then we'll be inviting more terrorism, just as Clinton's non-responses to attacks on U.S. embassies, bases, and naval vessels did nothing to deter the terrorists from attacking our office buildings in New York.

Just out of interest, what response would you have liked to have seen from Clinton in response to those incidents? Are you talking about military force and if so, who should it have been directed against?

[This message has been edited by FizzingWhizzbees (edited 02-03-2002).]

[Achtung Bubba]

What response? What we're doing now, against al Queda.

The Clinton Administration knew bin Ladin was behind the attacks - hence the two (and only two) cruise missles. We should have showed more teeth when our embassies and military bases were attacked.

[madonna's child]

Originally posted by U2live:
all he was doing is reading a teleprompter from what Dr. Rice wrote for him to say.

LOL! really, though, she is an incredible woman.


------------------
"A word I've always liked more than happiness is joy. Happiness is a mood that comes and goes, whereas joy is just there." -Bono

The CIRCLE only has one side.

MESH RULES!!!!!
(thanks to Bono's American Wife)

Love,
Emily

Visit my webpage for U2 wallpapers:
www.geocities.com/springtime5348/index.html

[Achtung Bubba]

It's clear, though, that even if presidents have speech writers that they ultimately approve the final draft.

No one simply said to President Bush, "Here's the speech, read it."