Bush's Speech..

Anyone read this?

http://michaelmoore.com/


Thought you might find it interesting as its on topic...posted in the chatroom by 'Former'



The UN Security Council, although brilliant in theory has a major flaw.........it has no teeth of its own. The councils members (apart from the 5 permanent members) rotate, and are often open to 'Bribery' (in the form of Foreign Aid) from others to buy votes.

The fact that even this failed to win a Majority of Security Council Votes (so no Veto's were actually needed) says something of the strength of feeling from the rest of the world on this issue. Personally, I dont think the 5 permanent members should have a veto (or even that the 5 members that are permanent should be).......and that it should go on a straight vote....but thats a different topic.


The population of the USA is about 250 million? Out of a world poplulation of 4 Billion.

Out of those 250 million, a lot are also against the war.

The US Government has the MIGHT to enforce what IT wants, but doesnt have the RIGHT. This is what pisses the rest of the world off.

It spouts about Democracy, but doesnt pay it lip service in the international arena.

To put it into terms you understand......

Its like the White Supremisists in the USA doing what they want in the USA, while the rest of the USA is helpless to stop it.....The fact that they do it even though opposed, doesnt win them any points with the population at large...it just pisses people off more.


But PLEASE..........can we save this debate until AFTER the war????

There is SOD ALL that either faction can do about it now......so lets not turn this into another Vietnam for the troops huh?

Its the politicians that screw things up, not them.....the least we can do now is NOT hit their moral while they are fighting....its a hard enough job, without thinking the world hates you for it...even your own people.

where u from rat? :huh:

well the thing is, rat, that bush thinks this will produce a better image. even tho a personal vedetta is partly reason. doesnt look likely that a better image will come, even if the people are given more freedom, like in afghanistan...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by puremindmatters+20 March 2003 - 21:01--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (puremindmatters @ 20 March 2003 - 21:01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Quote:

---

Originally posted by -j2k4@20 March 2003 - 20:12
<!--QuoteBegin--puremindmatters

---

Quote:

---

@20 March 2003 - 19:59

If you want to fight it, you should care for removing the root causes and not the symptoms. And you sure don&#39;t do that with weapons.

---

Okay-here&#39;s YOUR chance to convince me.

Let&#39;s hear it; tell me how?

1) I want to know what the root causes are.

2) I want YOU to tell me how to address/fix the problem.

---

1) I think they are under the impression that the US has and still does interfere with conflicts which aren&#39;t theirs, to serve their own and just their own interests (at that particular moment in time). The Iraq was your ally once, the Taliban were your allies once.

They don&#39;t like the support for Israel in their conflict, which they feel might have enabled Israel to prolong the conflict, whereas otherwise a solution might have been found.

They feel that you are trying to impose your way of life and believes on them - which is basically undermining their own belief system, and stifling their own attempts of creating societies they feel are natural and just.


- just before you start flaming me, those aren&#39;t my opinions, but that&#39;s what I gathered when speaking to a few Saudis and Palestinians which I wouldn&#39;t count to the more extremestic wings, and they sure weren&#39;t terrorists.

2) I personally think the time for super powers on this planet are over. I believe that the UN should have more power, that the veto right should be abolished and that this should be the only gremium to have the right to intercede in conflicts. The time for crusades were over after the middle ages. If democracy is the best possible politcal system (and so it would seem) it would prevail sooner or later. The politics before the nineties had some sort of weird logic to it, mostly referred to as the balance of terror. There is no-one left to balance the power the US holds other than a world community or the wisdom not to wield it blindly and callously.

So basically, I would say if democracy and tolerance is what you believe your society is based on, understand and tolerate the differences in mentality, religious, economic and political structures in the world, and subject to the democratic principles governing the UN by strengthening and not undermining them. If there has to be a police force in this world, there is no reason why the US shouldn&#39;t be part of it, but it can&#39;t be law-giver, police, judge and jury at the same time.

I&#39;m sure that is not quite the answer you were looking for, but if I had any better ones, I would have probably stayed in politics. [/b][/quote]
All that sounds peachy but I don&#39;t think terrorists
deserve the level of tolerance that you are talking about.

There is a time for talking and there is a time for fighting.

Now, we talked with UN/Saddam for the last twelve years since the
last war with Iraq and a whole lot of UN resolutinos later; here we are.

The final line was drawn.

You can&#39;t accuse the U.S. for not trying&#33;&#33;&#33;

Quote:

---

puremindmatters:
So your solution is that any given country can do what they want, attack who they want when it feels right and proper, or are at least powerful enough that no-one could stop them?

---

You know what? You seem really well worded and all that, I&#39;m sure your quite educated, but it&#39;s really funny to see what you can discern from anothers text. No dude, your wrong, sorry, but not every assumption you blindly make is truth. Not every country should do what it wants and frankly I&#39;m not getting drawn into some arguement laid our like that, which just begs of a response you can pounce on. The thing is here, the war has already started right? So it is what it is, and while people like you assume and debate it doesn&#39;t really mean you are any more right than the people you judge.

I would quote my "I&#39;m no warmondering American" but there it is. Most of our country isn&#39;t and that&#39;s why they now have journalists "embedded" with the troops, since the arguements assumptive liberals like you kick are basically "War for Oil" and "Killing of Innocents". So what if you find out that the war is not about oil and killing innocents? I personally stated my beliefs, so maybe take the time to page back and have another read and not try to cast me in the mold of the warmongering American you seem to be hoping to argue with.

Not everything is an verbal joust there buddy.

Quote:

---

puremindmatters, again with foot in mouth:
You can argue with islamic world about their perceptions about the US, as I said, I was recounting what I heard in several discussions I attended. I think terror is as wrong as any military conflict, which isn&#39;t an act of self-defence.

---

I don&#39;t go to conferences so I&#39;m not really sure what kind of Islamic people you claim to know. See here in America, we actually have Muslim people who live and work here, they want to be here, and are happy to have the opportunity to achieve what people can here. I mean people do continue to come to this country in droves remember? Whatever those people "think" of us means what? Just opinions. YOu seem to put a lot of belief into what people say man, not always a smart choice. Maybe in the end we the people of the world are all closer to eachother than our leaders, but war happens.

Not sure what fantasy world you live in but war seems to be as much a part of humanity as water. Do I like that? No. Did I or the Americans cause it? No. Fact is war happens, and if you could accept that fact, cause look at the news&#33; It is fact&#33; So if it happens under legally accepted terms of combat so be it. Wasn&#39;t me who came up with those guidelines, but if it is done that way, then support those fighting. To put the idea of terrorism and the idea of my friends over there right now in the same sentance is just fucking stupid dude, really, think about what you say.

Quote:

---

puremindmatters, apparently on a roll now:
This is the point which really confuses me in your argumentation - the US is still part of the UN, and if you say it is to weak, who is reponsible for that? The fact that there are different countries with different opinions, or that is a political gremium? And if the desire for military conflict is decreasing in most countries of the world, and that is reflected in that gremium, that is wrong?
Are you saying, fuck the politicians, let the military handle the world affairs again?

---

The UN is weak. I just gave you glaring examples of that. The UN refusing to take action in Kosovo till the Americans and Brits showed up gives me no confidence in them having more power. Sure talking is better than fighting, but let&#39;s not forget, when Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot killed all those people you know how they did it? With words. They gave orders based on beliefs. So no, I don&#39;t always think talking is the solution. If it were up to people like you we would still be doing nothing on this planet, and it has pretty much been shwon thus far that Afghanistan is better off without the Taliban has it not?

All countries should have an opinion, and they do, but does having an opinion make somebody right? While people argue, things happen, the world changes, and then one day you look up and see that.

Good god, WTF is wrong with you? What the fuck makes you think I like the idea of killing and death? I should hope you would understand here that I saw death and I know how terrible it is, it is something actually a lot of Americans feel. We don&#39;t want war and death, and yet one day it came to our doorstep.

Yet people base judgements on what they want to believe. Most Americans are not gung ho, it&#39;s just that our people of multiple ethnic origins are over there fighting and I do 100% support them.

I really hate when people online type things like "So are you saying".

Read what I said. Obviously I didn&#39;t ever say that, so I can only be left with the conclusion that you are one to assume things you shouldn&#39;t about people. I only hope for our people to be okay, and for whoever says "Kill All Americans" to see that that blind hate may not be worth the cost.

We can debate all day long here, but the war already started. I think that was about the total sum of my statements. Support the troops and hope a new day dawns, while ignorant people with nice words like you sit in judgement of a 250 million person population based on, once again here, assumptions.

You have no idea of my true and real thoughts since you are some guy at some message board who I never chat with.

-SJ™

true clubdiggler, on some aspects

SJ- too long&#33; :P

Quote:

---

Originally posted by puremindmatters+20 March 2003 - 21:01--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (puremindmatters @ 20 March 2003 - 21:01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Quote:

---

Originally posted by -j2k4@20 March 2003 - 20:12
<!--QuoteBegin--puremindmatters

---

Quote:

---

@20 March 2003 - 19:59

If you want to fight it, you should care for removing the root causes and not the symptoms. And you sure don&#39;t do that with weapons.

---

Okay-here&#39;s YOUR chance to convince me.

Let&#39;s hear it; tell me how?

1) I want to know what the root causes are.

2) I want YOU to tell me how to address/fix the problem.

---

1) I think they are under the impression that the US has and still does interfere with conflicts which aren&#39;t theirs, to serve their own and just their own interests (at that particular moment in time). The Iraq was your ally once, the Taliban were your allies once.

They don&#39;t like the support for Israel in their conflict, which they feel might have enabled Israel to prolong the conflict, whereas otherwise a solution might have been found.

They feel that you are trying to impose your way of life and believes on them - which is basically undermining their own belief system, and stifling their own attempts of creating societies they feel are natural and just.


- just before you start flaming me, those aren&#39;t my opinions, but that&#39;s what I gathered when speaking to a few Saudis and Palestinians which I wouldn&#39;t count to the more extremestic wings, and they sure weren&#39;t terrorists.

2) I personally think the time for super powers on this planet are over. I believe that the UN should have more power, that the veto right should be abolished and that this should be the only gremium to have the right to intercede in conflicts. The time for crusades were over after the middle ages. If democracy is the best possible politcal system (and so it would seem) it would prevail sooner or later. The politics before the nineties had some sort of weird logic to it, mostly referred to as the balance of terror. There is no-one left to balance the power the US holds other than a world community or the wisdom not to wield it blindly and callously.

So basically, I would say if democracy and tolerance is what you believe your society is based on, understand and tolerate the differences in mentality, religious, economic and political structures in the world, and subject to the democratic principles governing the UN by strengthening and not undermining them. If there has to be a police force in this world, there is no reason why the US shouldn&#39;t be part of it, but it can&#39;t be law-giver, police, judge and jury at the same time.

I&#39;m sure that is not quite the answer you were looking for, but if I had any better ones, I would have probably stayed in politics. [/b][/quote]
I appreciate your taking the time to try to answer me. I expect you are more civil than alot of the people posting here. I DON&#39;T FLAME-except Zardoz sometimes; that boy can get under my skin at will. Luckily, I am fireproof LOL.

Diplomacy and negotiation are fine, honorable things.

I think, though, that terrorism, and the threat thereof, is an impediment to the above processes that cannot be tolerated. I believe it&#39;s existence feeds the vitriol that precludes a lot of what COULD happen-Israel/Palestine case in point.
It is for this reason I don&#39;t object to the use of military force in Iraq. Say whatever you like about Iraq&#39;s links, or lack of same, to terrorism. I&#39;ll even grant for the sake of this discussion that the military option isn&#39;t too graceful.
But if this action gives other dictators (think Qaddafi) pause in supporting terrorism, would that lend to it&#39;s worth? Terrorism could not survive without state sanction.
Bonus-the Iraqi people are free, and stability is enhanced in an otherwise unstable region.
I think, if the U.S. wasn&#39;t regarded as the only superpower left, there would be alot less griping. If I remember correctly, the U.S.S.R didn&#39;t even try to justify invading Afganistan, and the outcry then was led by the U.S., as was the aid effort. These things escape people now.

true, but terrorism can survive without state sanction.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lil_z@21 March 2003 - 00:51
true, but terrorism can survive without state sanction.

---

How, exactly?
They need money to train.
They need money to terrorize.
They need places to train.
They need places to sleep.
Without the aid of a a state, they would be "homeless".
Say what you will about the homeless, they are not terrorists.

What if terrorists had the emnity of all states?

@ SJ - I was trying to understand your point of view. I cannot and do not judge you for what you are and what you aren&#39;t. I read your arguments and try to comprehend what you are saying. One thing I learned is never to attack people for their views, but question them if I find them questionable. A lot of what you accuse me I supposedly interpreted into your views, I simply haven&#39;t - I was asking, to get clarity. That is how I learned to discuss - if something seems odd to me, I ask if that is what the people meant.
Basically, what I said is that the UN is certainly not what it could be. That it is an attempt to find something like a global consensus to deal with crisis situations adequately and sensibly - whether it lived up to that up to now or not is a different question. My other question was, who is the UN? Isn&#39;t the US a part of it, and responsible for the way it shapes up just as all other members are?

So, what I was asking was: What are the alternatives? We are in a rather unique situation now. There is on country on this planet, namely the US, which holds more military, economic and politcal power than any other country ever before. Before there was some sort of balance when we had the USSR. But now this has changed. There is one country which could do what they want without being seriously challenged by any other country in the world. So if you are saying, and that is just my attempt to interpret what I could read about your views, that we all should just trust that whatever that country does is right and warranted, I do not feel comfortable. I cannot see that any set of politicians (of which you are apparently not so fond yourself) will make the right decisions at all times. If you say, the UN shouldn&#39;t have their spoke in decisions our government makes, that is just a toothless debating club, you can discard when the decisions don&#39;t agree with you, then I would say - where does that lead? It would make it as pointless as I presume you think it is. No progress would have been made since WW2. Is that really the case?

My other question was, how can you strengthen it? Agree to uphold its decisions and principles, or pick the ones you like and discard the others? Look at the way your democracy works. It works because of a set of rules which is being followed, enforced and administered. If that wasn&#39;t the case, it would be anarchy. The UN is based on the same set of principles. And if their strongest members are not willing to follow the rules, uphold the principles, how can it possibly work?

And to all the others who didn&#39;t quite get my other point - the US is projecting an image, their actions are being interpreted by friends and foes.
Whether those perceptions are right or wrong is not for me to judge. All I was saying is, that you should ask yourself why you have enemies, why people in the middle east resent your involvement rather than discount them all as a bunch of criminals and weirdos which need to be wiped off this earth. And my other question was, isn&#39;t this current war making that perception worse, and would that be the same, if it was backed by the UN?