Bush's Speech..

[ClubDiggler]

I agree, American foreign policy has not been very good over the years;
but this time lets go and take care of Saddam once and for all.

I don't agree with some of you who think this is about oil. Bush merely pointed out
in his speech that the oil in Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people and that wealth is not to be
destroyed by Saddam. Maybe some of it can be used to rebuil the country.

I thought the speech was fair. I was never a big fan of Bush, but he's gotten a little better
over time. Clinton was much better at public speaking. Sometimes it is hard to take Bush
seriously; but I think last night everyone did...

[Z]

WOW! 50 responses. im impressed guys! (cuz last night there wuz only 3.)
i think his speech was very well-written and he spoke very well, firmly, and clearly (which he doesnt often do).

another thing:

Do you think we are saving Iraqs citizens from Saddam?

This is another sort of underlying "excuse" although it does seem true, i think we are helping them even though some will inevitably die as a result (not just soldiers). Bush seems to emphasize this point (that Iraqis will be better off), even though its probably one of his lesser motivations.

What do u guys think? (im in canada by the way, 16yo w/ 8y in US and 8 in Canada).

[Z]

crackedup. i read the article (written by an american).
it was very good.

[ksmurf]

I have a real idiot for a Prime Minister. He refuses to assist our best friend, trading partner and ally. I am embarassed to say i am canadian. i think that they should have just taken Saddam out ten years ago. Pls make it quick and godspeed to the troops.

[j2k4]

I read the "Arrogant Empire" link; the columnist is not a conservative, but nonetheless does a fairly good job of providing a reasonably accurate snapshot of the situation in the mideast and the perception of U.S. and it's foreign policy by other relevant countries. This is especially impressive as the story appeared in NEWSWEEK, which is not noted for having a conservative point of view.

But I have to ask: What would any one of you have the U.S. do to please you? Everyone has an opinion. If I (or anyone) could poll all who are reading this thread, I would probably find no common theme other than a negative feeling about the U.S. in general and George Bush in particular. (As an aside, i noticed some seem to have a strange affection for Bill Clinton, but there is another thread) Everyone thinks he stole the election in 2000, he lives to execute people in Texas, he doesn't suffer from "international sensitivity", and is a war-monger to boot.

My point is, you can't please everybody-if you tried, you'd be dead in the water, immobilized by dissenting opinion. So-George Bush is going to do what he thinks is right.

Those who decry the plight of the Iraqi people don't choose to entertain another alternative, which would be to turn up international pressure to force Saddam to leave Iraq voluntarily; no coalition forthcoming there.

Jacque Chirac's deals with Saddam need not suffer if Saddam leaves-why didn't he join in that effort? Would that not have had the effect of assuring the Iraqi people wouldn't suffer? Chirac is not suffering anyone's wrath for failing to "do the right thing".

Why is ALL the emnity reserved for America? I find it strange that in none of the threads I've followed is it suggested that ANY other nation could have acted effectively to alter or defuse the situation. Nobody at all has even raised the possibility. Why is that?

The U.S. has been waiting for the do-nothing U.N. to get off it's dead ass for more than a year-yet the dissenters-France, Russia, Germany, or anybody else-couldn't see the eventuality?

Yes, they did-but they chose to do nothing.

[Z]

EVILBAGPUSS:

If the USA/UK start implementing regime change against other dictatorships who dont have any oil then I will do a complete U-turn.

im sorry? Afghanistan? North Korea (not yet)? Neither have oil. Which other regimes have the US tried to oust?

[MagicNakor]

Originally posted by ksmurf@19 March 2003 - 05:00
I have a real idiot for a Prime Minister.  He refuses to assist our best friend, trading partner and ally.  I am embarassed to say i am canadian.  i think that they should have just taken Saddam out ten years ago.  Pls make it quick and godspeed to the troops.

He has a backbone. I'm extremely glad Canada isn't sending troops over to fight Bush's "crusade." And yes, he did refer to it as a crusade at one point. The UN was working. It just wasn't fast enough for the US.

Edit to add: Regarding other posts so that I don't take up countless spots:

lil_z: Afghanistan has oil. Roughly 95 million barrels left. It produces 300 barrels/day in the Angot oil fields.
Futhermore, when you're fighting in a city as big and heavily populated as Baghdad, there are going to be a horrendous amount of civilian causulties. I'm going to wager that the normal, every-day citizen of Baghdad is going to defend his housing and his family. The Americans and the British that are going in there aren't just going to be fighting the military. If I'm wrong, we'll see. But I doubt I will be.


ClubDiggler: Of course people took Bush seriously. You always take the man with a loaded gun seriously.

[Z]

Chretien is just a follower (my opinion). i live in canada. if most countries hadnt opposed to bush's plan, he wouldnt have had enough courage to pull his head out of bush's ass.

now blair is another story...(i dunno about britain ).

edit to add:

magicnakor :
ty for pointing out afghanistans situation, but the fight there had nothing to do with oil. (Talibans refusal of turning in bin Laden and the human rights - or so they say...)
and yes i realize that there will be civilian casualties (was that response to me??). An
interview (on 20/20 was it?) with one of the military commanders stated, when asked if a stash of bombs or other military [devices] - for lack of a better word in my mind - is off limits to attacks, no, they are not off limits, but a decision must be made in each situation. he seems ready to bomb residential areas (though not necessarily to kill civilians, but not showing enough remorse if they have to do so).

i support ridding world of Saddam (can u say assassination? ) and until just today, i was undecided in my view of a war. but a war killing thousands of innocents (it will happen, no matter what they say) is unjustified no matter what (even after that speech).

[healimonster]

Originally posted by al_birkett@18 March 2003 - 12:34

The speech...

Made me clear its about the oil...

jetje is right .... all this war is about is oil and I wish everyone else could see this too. One of the first objectives of the allied attack is to 'secure the oil fields' yeah I bet 'secure' my ass , secure them from anyone else apart from america. you'd think that once in the process of attacking iraq the allies america would try and 'secure' all these chemical and biological weapons he is suppose to have hiding under his bed.

I pity your ignorance.

From before the axes of evil speech, until a few months the words war and oil had nothing to do with each other and they still shouldn't. It is odd how this has become a war about oil only when the dissenting minority speaks their mind to the media. Only when it is the most sensational offense the opposition has against this attack. "Its about the oil and the gas prices" That is so much of a cliché it is ridicules. For any one that is keeping score and has followed this story for the past year they would know that any knowledgeable liberal in opposition of this war has never even uttered the word "oil" once. This is about terrorism. The terror that Saddam has inflected on his own people, and the potential for dealings with other terrorists that have clear and present motives against the United States.

I hate online rants, protesting, and standing on soapboxes. Opinions are like assholes, we all got one. But clearly missing the point and perpetuating misinformation is not acceptable.

[j2k4]

I would not have thought I could be such a big fan of Tony Blair. The man is standing tall in a pretty stiff breeze.