Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 34 of 34

Thread: Bush's speach last night

  1. #21
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish[/i]@May 25 2004, 02:01 PM
    [b] [quote][b]This is nonsense. [/b][/quote]

    Sure it is. Since it disagrees with your side, it MUST be nonesense.

    [quote][b]I simply find it offensive that air America, a paid infomercial for the Democratic party, is getting their anti Bush anti American message across using foreigners[/b][/quote]

    Sure, and Right-Wing Radio isn't a "paid Commercial" for the Republican party!!! (SHOCK!)

    [quote][b]I would be equally as offended in hearing a foreigner criticising Clinton and Americas policys under him on American radio.[/b][/quote]

    I am sure you would be..... [/b][/quote]
    Actually Right wing radio is NOT paid for by the Republican party. They rely on ratings and commercial sponsors like any other station. Air America is fully funded by the Democratic party.

  2. #22
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish[/i]@May 25 2004, 01:55 PM
    [b] [quote][b]So Germany and Italy never attacked us, thanks for agreeing.

    Why didn't we invade Afghanistan in 1998, a day after OBL declared war against us?[/b][/quote]

    Don't be ignorant Jets5. There is a msaive difference between a single man declaring some kinf of religious Jihad vs. a Nation who had already conquered most of Eurpoe and whop is allied with the Nation that just crippled our Pacific Navy.

    You cannot possibly equate the two in any kind of logical sense.

    [quote][b]"Better" intelligence services? Wow, hadn't thought of that. That sounds easy!

    "Pro-active national defense" - that is a soothing group of syllables! Great! That's all I need to know!

    "Immediate termination of any and all terrorist camps" - Why hasn't anyone ever thought of this before?! You're on a roll dude!n Sovreignty and diplomacy be damned! I am sure no countries would consider those bombings and act of war or aggression or violation of their sovreignty, that plan doens't sound anything like "You're either with us or against us!"[/b][/quote]

    You ask a question, then ***** at the answers. Again, don't be ignorant Jets5. Terrorism CAN be contained with the proper intelligence services and a change in how this nation handles immigration and other border & importation related issues.

    If you didn't want an answer, don't ask the question.

    [quote][b]So when stateless terrorists defy conventional rules of war, we are not allowed to defy those same rules in response? Got it. Too bad for us, huh?[/b][/quote]

    Not if we are the "Moral" nation we claim to be, no, not under most circumstances.

    [quote][b]Wouldn't removing Saddam in 1991 have been a violation of the sovreignty of a ruler who had never attacked the US? Exactly what was different about removing him in 1991 or in 2003?[/b][/quote]

    No, Saddam acting aggressively toward a US ally Nation (Kuwiat). We defended our ally and should have finished the job at that time, as we did in WWII.

    [quote][b]BTW - the UN would have never agreed to back the 1991 war of regime change had been included in that Resolution.[/b][/quote]

    Yes, the would have. But you can claim they would not have all you like, as long as that backs your argument.

    I also thought the UN meant nothing, so why even include that comment? The UN doesn't run the USA right?

    [quote][b]Your last analogy is not apt. Saddam agreed to the terms of a cease-fire and one of the terms was that the UN (of course it really mean the US since no other country ever lifts a finger) would patrol the no-fly zones in order to police their skies and ensure the protection of the Kurds. Shooting at even one plane was considered to be a material violation and an act of aggression by Saddam, in whichcase the Resolution authorizing force would be enacted once again. But yeah, you're summary about Iraqi planes trying to control our airspace is better.

    We stopped in 1991 and gave Saddam a chance to act like a civilized man. He didn't and has 12 years of chances. He got removed. [/b][/quote]

    The only reason you claim it isn't "apt" is becuase it disagrees with your point. If you truly feel the US should have let him have ANOTHER Chance, you are a fool Jets5. I don't think you are a fool at all, but to claim we did the right thing by leaving him in power, you are sadly mistaken. [/b][/quote]
    Just pointing out the absurdity of your flip comment about attacking a country that had "never attacked America."


    Israel has the best intelligence in the world, including a fleet of people who look and speak like arabs. Yet they suffer from terrorism. They build a fence to shore up their borders and the world (even the US) *****es at them. Their actions are also said to &#39;create a thousand more terrorists.&#39; Everyone knows exactly what will cotain terrorism, and coincidentally it is everything that the USA isn&#39;t doing. <_< Asked to give specific plans, people use buzz-words, wait for the USA to act, and then scream, "I&#39;d do the opposite&#33;&#33;&#33;"

    I DID want an answer to that question, not simply empty buzzwords like "better" and
    "pro-active."

    What are "most circumstances?"

    Invading Kuwait is legit, but being in material violation of 16 resolutions the course of 12 years, and unanimous UN support for Rs 1441 is not a valid reason? Lucky for Saddam....

    I included the UN because that is what most people consider to be the "legitimacy" of the first Gulf War. nothing. Saudia Arabia was adamant about not removing Saddam and the UN itself talked about "regional stability" when we pulled back in 1991. Unanimous support would have been impossible to achieve had regine change and a UN occupation been in the resolution.

    Your analogy is completely not apt and this isn&#39;t debatable. If you had said the US agreed to allow Iraqi planes to safely patrol our airspace after we lost a war in which we invaded another country, and then we shot at them anyway for years, then your analogy woudl be apt. You didn&#39;t, it isn&#39;t. Basic stuff.

    I NEVER said letting Saddam stay on board was a good move. You need to read my words and not what you think they are. I said your analogy wasn&#39;t apt and that the UN would never have authorized the 1991 war if we stated beforehand that we wanted to remove Saddam. I AGREE 100% that he should have been removed and I think that it shows that "international opinion" is often wrong or at least contra to US interests. Of course the job should have been finished. My last sentence merely re-caps what happened, it makes no judgment about what SHOULD have happened and it claims nothing. Saddam should have been removed in 1991. I agree. We bowed to the pressure of the UN at the time and didn&#39;t want to piss off our allies or "world opinion." We should have and that experience, among many, many others, has shown the US that the UN isn&#39;t always something to be deferred to or catered to.

  3. #23
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,953
    [quote][b]It&#39;s so clear that the people questioning your above posts have no good counterpoints. Instead they focus on catchphrases and one-liners. I have yet to read a clear and decisive counter to your arguments. Its easy to nitpick guys, but its hard to argue with the facts.[/b][/quote]

    Ok, that&#39;s Enough....how do you agrue with this kind of "logic".

    Whatever you say is "Fact" and whatever I say is a a"Catchphrase". Right.

    Thanks for the debate Jets5, at least you, for all your anger and arrogance, try to present a logical viewpoint, no matter how much I may or may not disagree with an individual point or issue.

  4. #24
    5ever RE: 9-12

    i have gone point by point with you dozens of times... you didn&#39;t like my ideas at the time, you still don&#39;t like them, so why should i waste my breath... again.

    it&#39;s ok that George Bush wastes soldiers lives in Iraq cause apparently its REALLY HARD to be the President&#33; so many bad options... lesser of many evils the only appropriate choice


    this is bull**** and you know it

    when the JETS lose no one says how hard it is to play QB and make the throws... how hard it is to pass rush... all that counts is results

    when the President of the US f--ks up (and PEOPLE DIE because of it) - he deserves our understanding? Why? cause it&#39;s hard to be the President?

    i have a plan and i have said it many times. You guys don&#39;t listen it&#39;s cause you are too damn brainwashed, it&#39;s not my fault.

    9-12 plan

    step 1: REALLY shut the borders
    step 2: racial profile everyone... if you have to start throwin people out, so be it.
    step 3: national ID card
    step 4: MPG cap for residential vehicles - tax breaks for hybrids, not hummers
    step 5: Drill in ANWR, Increase Coal, Nuclear power for residential energy
    step 6: LEGITIMATE research into alternative energies *
    step 7: Let Israel take care of itself, screw them.
    step 8: sort out the ABC soup of Intel agencies - consolidate also give them power to operate without calling committees - if they have a chance at terrorists overseas let them shoot first and ask questions later.

    that&#39;s a pretty decent start...

    what if it doesn&#39;t work?

    THEN start invading countries - we have nothing to lose - cause lets face facts another 9-11 could happen at any time and this war didn&#39;t stop that fear whatsoever.

    Pre-Emptive war should be a LAST resort not a FIRST resort

    even that they screwed up by not using enough troops, not shutting Iraq borders, not creating law and order in Iraq, not connecting with the people of Iraq - they hate us there...

    any way you look at it this administration screwed up.

    (*did you know the US proportion of GDP spent on scientific research is far less than many other countries)

  5. #25
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Bit-

    Good post. I&#39;m off to a meeting but will respond in greater detail. However, you GDP point about scientific research - is that merely government spending or does it also include private sector R & D? I find it VERY hard to believe our TOTAL spending on R&D is that low...but I don&#39;t have the data so I don&#39;t know....

  6. #26
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@May 25 2004, 01:49 PM
    [b] are you seriously saying that in 1998 OBL spoke on behalf of all Islamic nations, including Afghanistan?

    a little shoddy i will say this much it&#39;s a more definitive declaration of war than anything that Americans have done since WWII.

    congress hasn&#39;t formally declared war on anyone since 1941 [/b][/quote]
    Did North Korea declare war on the United States in the 50&#39;s? Did Vietnam declare war on us in the 60&#39;s? Did Bosnia declare war on us in the 90&#39;s? The conflicts we have been involved in over the past 50 years have all been political in nature. Our leaders felt that our security was at risk. They acted on those beliefs.

    The argument that Iraq never attacked us and therefore we should not have gotten involved there is wrong in premise. American foreign policy for the past 50 years dictates that there is no such doctrine. Like it or not, Iraq was a thorn in our side. The regime there didn&#39;t fit in with our plans for the Middle East. They broke their ceasefire agreements with us. [color=red]Make no mistake, that alone was justification for war[/color]. The agenda in Iraq is to free their citizens and set up a representative government. The first of its kind in an Arab country. The cause is a noble one.

  7. #27
    all of the conflicts you mentioned were Police Actions, not wars.

    None were really necessary from a national security perspective... all were perpetrated through a loophole in the US Constitution...

    we don&#39;t declare war we just GO to war. That&#39;s not democratic.

    turns out the Ruskies were the least of our problems, at least in the Cold war we knew where the Nukes were... and we knew someone was watching them now we are waiting for them to show up as dirty bombs... much better.

  8. #28
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,953
    Appropriate Reasons for War (Per Chiefs2000):

    -- Being a "thorn" in the Side of US Interests.

    -- Not fitting in with US Plans for a particular region

    Wow, that sure gives us alot of leeway, doesn&#39;t it? Thank you for clarifying. I understand now.

  9. #29
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@May 25 2004, 03:03 PM
    [b] all of the conflicts you mentioned were Police Actions, not wars.

    None were really necessary from a national security perspective... all were perpetrated through a loophole in the US Constitution...

    we don&#39;t declare war we just GO to war. That&#39;s not democratic.

    turns out the Ruskies were the least of our problems, at least in the Cold war we knew where the Nukes were... and we knew someone was watching them now we are waiting for them to show up as dirty bombs... much better. [/b][/quote]
    Semantics. Police action war. Its all semantics.

    If you think that Vietnam or Korea were not necessary for national security, your incredibly misinformed.

    You should have said that in hindsight, in your humble opinion, those wars were not necessary. You can also say that in hindsight, in your opinion, you think the USSR was a more palatable enemy than the terrorists.

  10. #30
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish[/i]@May 25 2004, 03:11 PM
    [b] Appropriate Reasons for War (Per Chiefs2000):

    -- Being a "thorn" in the Side of US Interests.

    -- Not fitting in with US Plans for a particular region

    Wow, that sure gives us alot of leeway, doesn&#39;t it? Thank you for clarifying. I understand now. [/b][/quote]
    Actually, to quote myself,

    [b]They broke their ceasefire agreements with us. Make no mistake, that alone was justification for war.[/b]


    Nice try though.

  11. #31
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,953
    OK, have a nice day&#33; :D

  12. #32
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    When we succeed in iraq it seems American liberals...oops, I mean American "moderates", will be more upset than al queda.

  13. #33
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,281
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@May 25 2004, 01:55 PM
    [b] Often in history, leaders are faced with two very bad options, both with potential long-term negative ramifications. Yet Monday Morning QBs who read cnn.com&#39;s "Timeline of the Middle East" all of a sudden know all of the answers.

    [/b][/quote]
    Priceless&#33;&#33;&#33;

    ;)

  14. #34
    George W. Bush&#39;s Alternative Pronunciations for "ABU GHRAIB"

    * Abu Granade

    * Abu Beret

    * Abu Perrier

    * Abu Gumby

    * Abu McRib

    * Abu Chalabi

    * Abu Degrade

    * Abu Green Day

    * Abu Shave

    * Abu Gabe

    * Abu Hooray

    * Abu Gump

    * Abu Grrrreat&#33;

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us