• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What Bush should say in the State of the Union Address.

Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
A Fitting Address
The speech President Bush should give about Iraq.

BY JAMES Q. WILSON
Sunday, November 27, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST


President Bush and Vice President Cheney are arguing against critics of the Iraq war who are trying to rewrite history. There is some value in this, but it is a fight about the past and not about the future.

What most Americans care about is not who is lying but whether we are winning. I offer this speech that the president might use to tell Americans that we are winning:


My fellow Americans: We are winning, and winning decisively, in Iraq and the Middle East. We defeated Saddam Hussein's army in just a few weeks. None of the disasters that many feared would follow our invasion occurred. Our troops did not have to fight door to door to take Baghdad. The Iraqi oil fields were not set on fire. There was no civil war between the Sunnis and the Shiites. There was no grave humanitarian crisis.

Saddam Hussein was captured and is awaiting trial. His two murderous sons are dead. Most of the leading members of Saddam's regime have been captured or killed. After our easy military victory, we found ourselves inadequately prepared to defeat the terrorist insurgents, but now we are prevailing.

Iraq has held free elections in which millions of people voted. A new, democratic constitution has been adopted that contains an extensive bill of rights. Discrimination on the basis of sex, religion or politics is banned. Soon the Iraqis will be electing their first parliament.

An independent judiciary exists, almost all public schools are open, every hospital is functioning, and oil sales have increased sharply. In most parts of the country, people move about freely and safely.

According to surveys, Iraqis are overwhelmingly opposed to the use of violence to achieve political ends, and the great majority believe that their lives will improve in the future. The Iraqi economy is growing very rapidly, much more rapidly than the inflation rate.

In some places, the terrorists who lost the war are now fighting back by killing Iraqi civilians. Some brave American soldiers have also been killed, but most of the attacks are directed at decent, honest Iraqis. This is not a civil war; it is terrorism gone mad.

And the terrorists have failed. They could not stop free elections. They could not prevent Iraqi leaders from taking office. They could not close the schools or hospitals. They could not prevent the emergence of a vigorous free press that now involves over 170 newspapers that represent every shade of opinion.

Terrorist leaders such as Zarqawi have lost. Most Sunni leaders, whom Zarqawi was hoping to mobilize, have rejected his call to defeat any constitution. The Muslims in his hometown in Jordan have denounced him. Despite his murderous efforts, candidates representing every legitimate point of view and every ethnic background are competing for office in the new Iraqi government.

The progress of democracy and reconstruction has occurred faster in Iraq than it did in Germany 60 years ago, even though we have far fewer troops in the Middle East than we had in Germany after Hitler was defeated.





We grieve deeply over every lost American and coalition soldier, but we also recognize what those deaths have accomplished. A nation the size of California, with 25 million inhabitants, has been freed from tyranny, equipped with a new democratic constitution, and provided with a growing new infrastructure that will help every Iraqi and not just the privileged members of a brutal regime. For every American soldier who died, 12,000 Iraqi voters were made into effective citizens.
Virtually every American soldier who writes home or comes back to visit his family tells the same story: We have won, Iraqis have won, and life in most of Iraq goes on without violence and with obvious affection between the Iraqi people and our troops. These soldiers have not just restored order in most places, they have built schools, aided businesses, distributed aid and made friends.

To take their places, Iraq has trained, with American and NATO assistance, tens of thousands of new troops and police officers. In the last election, there were more Iraqi soldiers than American ones guarding the polling places.

We know that much remains to be done. Sunni and Shiite leaders must work together more closely. We know that for centuries Sunni leaders, including Saddam, ruled Iraq even though the Sunnis are only a minority of its population: The terrorists began by killing Shiites but now have killed Sunnis as well, all without the slightest moral justification. But we know from America's own experience that when different groups work together constructively, they learn to trust one another. That must happen, and will happen, in Iraq.

Our success is not confined to Iraq. Libya has renounced its search for nuclear weapons. Syria has pulled out of Lebanon. Afghanistan has produced a democratic government and economic progress for its people. Egypt has had the beginnings of a democratic vote. In an area once dominated by dictatorships, the few remaining ones are either changing or worrying deeply about those that have changed.

We know now that some of our information about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was wrong. But we also know now what we have always believed: That Saddam Hussein, who had already invaded both Iran and Kuwait, had the money, authority and determination to build up his stock of such weapons. When he did, he would have become the colossus of the Middle East, able to overwhelm other countries and rain rockets down on Israel.

We have created a balance of power in the Middle East in which no regime can easily threaten any other. In doing this, we and our allies have followed a long tradition: We worked to prevent Imperial Germany from dominating Europe in 1914, Hitler from doing the same in 1940, and the Soviet Union from doing this in 1945. Now we are doing it in the Middle East.

And we are winning. Soon Iraqi forces will be able to maintain order in the few hot spots that still exist in Iraq. We will stay the course until they are ready. We made no mistake ending Saddam's rule. We have brought not only freedom to Iraq, but progress to most of the Middle East. America should be proud of what it has accomplished. America will not cut and run until the Iraqis can manage their own security, and that will happen soon.

Thank you, and God bless you.

Mr. Wilson has taught at Harvard, UCLA and Pepperdine, and is the author, among other books, of "The Moral Sense" (Free Press, 1997).


http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007603
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
We are in a stalemate. The insurgency was stronger in 2005 than in 2004, thus disproving the idea that if our troops just hung around long enough the insurgency would magically disappear. The people elected an Iranophilic government.

However, the war in Iraq will go from a stalemate to an unprecedented geopolitical disaster, if the end result is Bush *****ing out on Iran and letting them get nukes.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Kandahar said:
We are in a stalemate. The insurgency was stronger in 2005 than in 2004, thus disproving the idea that if our troops just hung around long enough the insurgency would magically disappear. The people elected an Iranophilic government.

However, the war in Iraq will go from a stalemate to an unprecedented geopolitical disaster, if the end result is Bush *****ing out on Iran and letting them get nukes.
The Iraqi insurgency hasn't been able to meet any of their ends, how exactly are they strong and what makes them stronger now then in '04?
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
The Iraqi insurgency hasn't been able to meet any of their ends,
So? Who gives a **** if they meet their goals? Osama Bin Laden didn't meet this goals of getting the US out of the Middle East when he attacked the World Trade Center. Does that make 9/11 a good thing?

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
how exactly are they strong and what makes them stronger now then in '04?
They killed more American soldiers, which is what the President of the United States should be concerned about.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Kandahar said:
So? Who gives a **** if they meet their goals? Osama Bin Laden didn't meet this goals of getting the US out of the Middle East when he attacked the World Trade Center. Does that make 9/11 a good thing?



They killed more American soldiers, which is what the President of the United States should be concerned about.
But the thing is the insurgency isn't meeting of its goals and the U.S. and Iraqi people are, we're winning.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
But the thing is the insurgency isn't meeting of its goals and the U.S. and Iraqi people are, we're winning.
And what "goals" are we meeting, other than stopping the insurgents from meeting their goals? Terrorism is alive and well, democracy is looking more and more like an Iranian-allied government, there weren't any WMDs, and the whole mess is causing Bush to ***** out on Iran.

By what measure are we "winning"?
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Kandahar said:
And what "goals" are we meeting, other than stopping the insurgents from meeting their goals? Terrorism is alive and well, democracy is looking more and more like an Iranian-allied government, there weren't any WMDs, and the whole mess is causing Bush to ***** out on Iran.

By what measure are we "winning"?
That article which you obviously didn't even read spells out exactly how we're winning and have been winning here's a couple of points:
My fellow Americans: We are winning, and winning decisively, in Iraq and the Middle East. We defeated Saddam Hussein's army in just a few weeks. None of the disasters that many feared would follow our invasion occurred. Our troops did not have to fight door to door to take Baghdad. The Iraqi oil fields were not set on fire. There was no civil war between the Sunnis and the Shiites. There was no grave humanitarian crisis.

Saddam Hussein was captured and is awaiting trial. His two murderous sons are dead. Most of the leading members of Saddam's regime have been captured or killed. After our easy military victory, we found ourselves inadequately prepared to defeat the terrorist insurgents, but now we are prevailing.

Iraq has held free elections in which millions of people voted. A new, democratic constitution has been adopted that contains an extensive bill of rights. Discrimination on the basis of sex, religion or politics is banned. Soon the Iraqis will be electing their first parliament.

An independent judiciary exists, almost all public schools are open, every hospital is functioning, and oil sales have increased sharply. In most parts of the country, people move about freely and safely.

According to surveys, Iraqis are overwhelmingly opposed to the use of violence to achieve political ends, and the great majority believe that their lives will improve in the future. The Iraqi economy is growing very rapidly, much more rapidly than the inflation rate.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
That article which you obviously didn't even read spells out exactly how we're winning and have been winning here's a couple of points:
Umm, yeah speaking of the article, TOT...next time post a summary or a paragraph and the link. As per forum rules. Please.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
My fellow Americans: We are winning, and winning decisively, in Iraq and the Middle East. We defeated Saddam Hussein's army in just a few weeks. None of the disasters that many feared would follow our invasion occurred. Our troops did not have to fight door to door to take Baghdad. The Iraqi oil fields were not set on fire. There was no civil war between the Sunnis and the Shiites. There was no grave humanitarian crisis.
Translation: "Our troops did better than the absolute worst-case scenario set forth by ideologues who knew nothing of the situation. Therefore, we're winning."

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Saddam Hussein was captured and is awaiting trial. His two murderous sons are dead. Most of the leading members of Saddam's regime have been captured or killed.
Whoopdedoo. I really hope that this isn't an attempt to justify committing over 100,000 troops and hundreds of billions of dollars to remove a few individuals we had petty squabbles with, who were no threat to us at all.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
After our easy military victory, we found ourselves inadequately prepared to defeat the terrorist insurgents, but now we are prevailing.
This is, as I already mentioned, a falsehood. How are we prevailing against insurgents, other than stopping THEM from achieving THEIR goals?

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Iraq has held free elections in which millions of people voted. A new, democratic constitution has been adopted that contains an extensive bill of rights. Discrimination on the basis of sex, religion or politics is banned. Soon the Iraqis will be electing their first parliament.
They did that. And they elected an Islamist slate of pro-Iran candidates.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
An independent judiciary exists, almost all public schools are open, every hospital is functioning, and oil sales have increased sharply. In most parts of the country, people move about freely and safely.
Again, who gives a ****? It's more important to deal with the nuclear threat in Iran, than to make sure public schools and hospitals are open in Iraq. Oil sales have not increased by a larger margin than they were increasing in the years prior to the war. Where do you think Saddam Hussein got most of his revenue?

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
According to surveys, Iraqis are overwhelmingly opposed to the use of violence to achieve political ends,
Was this true prior to the war? If so, how can this be cited as an accomplishment?

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
and the great majority believe that their lives will improve in the future. The Iraqi economy is growing very rapidly, much more rapidly than the inflation rate.
When we commit large amounts of military forces and funds, it should be to protect American security, not to improve the economy of the country we're invading.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Kandahar said:
Translation: "Our troops did better than the absolute worst-case scenario set forth by ideologues who knew nothing of the situation. Therefore, we're winning."



Whoopdedoo. I really hope that this isn't an attempt to justify committing over 100,000 troops and hundreds of billions of dollars to remove a few individuals we had petty squabbles with, who were no threat to us at all.



This is, as I already mentioned, a falsehood. How are we prevailing against insurgents, other than stopping THEM from achieving THEIR goals?



They did that. And they elected an Islamist slate of pro-Iran candidates.



Again, who gives a ****? It's more important to deal with the nuclear threat in Iran, than to make sure public schools and hospitals are open in Iraq. Oil sales have not increased by a larger margin than they were increasing in the years prior to the war. Where do you think Saddam Hussein got most of his revenue?



Was this true prior to the war? If so, how can this be cited as an accomplishment?



When we commit large amounts of military forces and funds, it should be to protect American security, not to improve the economy of the country we're invading.
Tell me sir other than what was stated what would you consider as winning? We are winning and we have been winning since day one.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Tell me sir other than what was stated what would you consider as winning? We are winning and we have been winning since day one.
I would say that we were winning (in the military sense) if:

1. Our president grew a spine on dealing with Iran, and was able to legitimately refute the argument that invading another country wouldn't destabilize Iraq.
2. The insurgency showed signs of decline.
3. We were able to pull troops out of Iraq to deploy them where there are actually threats to our security.

This is, of course, only how we'd be winning in the MILITARY sense. We lost the battle for hearts and minds long ago, to say nothing of the president's credibility and America's reputation in the world.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Kandahar said:
I would say that we were winning (in the military sense) if:

1. Our president grew a spine on dealing with Iran, and was able to legitimately refute the argument that invading another country wouldn't destabilize Iraq.
What do you want us to do with Iran? I thought you were all for peace and love try to stay consistent here you can't be for a war with Iran and against the war in Iraq. It's two peas in the same pod, Iran doesn't have nukes yet they only have nuclear programs, and Saddam had WMD programs that is a fact they have been found it's only the stockpiles that are unaccounted for, so now you're saying you want to stop Iran before they get nukes but are against the war in Iraq that stopped Saddam from reconstituting his WMD programs. It's a hypocritical argument.
2. The insurgency showed signs of decline.
What do you want white flags? It's 27 million Iraqis vs. 10,000 insurgents which side would you bet on? Counter insurgencies in Columbia took a decade and a half to take effect the fact of the matter is that insurgencies are always defeated in the end it just takes time, we are winning because the Iraqis are stepping up, the insurgency can only be defeated by the Iraqis themselves that's why we're focusing so much on transfer from U.S. to Iraqi security.
3. We were able to pull troops out of Iraq to deploy them where there are actually threats to our security.

This is, of course, only how we'd be winning in the MILITARY sense. We lost the battle for hearts and minds long ago,
That's not what the majority of Iraqis say. According to polls the Iraqi people are happy about us removing Saddam and are optimistic about their future.
to say nothing of the president's credibility and America's reputation in the world.
It's not Bush that the world hates it's America and that's the way it's always been, we can have anyone in power and the French, Germans, and Russians will still hate us and you know what screw them they had back door oil treaties with Saddam under the oil for food scandal talk about credibility issues. I could really give to sh!ts what these two bit crooks and dictators think of us, these peoples agenda is to bring the U.S. down to there level they're p!ssed that we're the worlds soul super power and they want us to be defeated, well fuc/k them.
 
Last edited:

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
What do you want us to do with Iran? I thought you were all for peace and love
Me, for peace and love? Where on earth did you get that idea? When war is necessary to protect America, I will always support it. I'm only against idiotic wars based on lies that make our country weaker, such as Iraq.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
try to stay consistent here you can't be for a war with Iran and against the war in Iraq. It's two peas in the same pod, Iran doesn't have nukes yet they only have nuclear programs, and Saddam had WMD programs that is a fact they have been found it's only the stockpiles that are unaccounted for, so now you're saying you want to stop Iran before they get nukes but are against the war in Iraq that stopped Saddam from reconstituting his WMD programs. It's a hypocritical argument.
Even if that was true...
Was Saddam Hussein 1-3 years from a nuclear weapon? Was Saddam Hussein an irrational religious fanatic who believed it was his duty to bring about the apocalypse? No.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
What do you want white flags? It's 27 million Iraqis vs. 10,000 insurgents which side would you bet on?
It's been 10,000 insurgents for a long time. There's no sign of any DECLINE in the insurgency, thus proving that simply leaving troops in the country doesn't make it magically go away.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Counter insurgencies in Columbia took a decade and a half to take effect the fact of the matter is that insurgencies are always defeated in the end it just takes time, we are winning because the Iraqis are stepping up, the insurgency can only be defeated by the Iraqis themselves that's why we're focusing so much on transfer from U.S. to Iraqi security.
Well we don't have 15 years to *****foot around in Iraq. There are other, more pressing threats to our national security.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
That's not what the majority of Iraqis say. According to polls the Iraqi people are happy about us removing Saddam and are optimistic about their future.
And they thanked us by electing Islamists allied with our most dangerous enemy.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
It's not Bush that the world hates it's America and that's the way it's always been, we can have anyone in power and the French, Germans, and Russians will still hate us
Not true. What other US president in modern times did the rest of the world hate as much as George Bush?

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
and you know what screw them they had back door oil treaties with Saddam under the oil for food scandal talk about credibility issues. I could really give to sh!ts what these two bit crooks and dictators think of us,
It's not just crooks and dictators that hate George Bush. It's the citizens of every other country in the world.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Kandahar said:
Me, for peace and love? Where on earth did you get that idea? When war is necessary to protect America, I will always support it. I'm only against idiotic wars based on lies that make our country weaker, such as Iraq.
It wasn't based on lies. It was based on Saddam's weapons programs, his support of terrorists, his ties to AlQaeda, the genocide and attrocities which occurred under his regime, his continious threatening of his neighbors, and his flagrant disregard for the U.N. resolutions placed against him.
Even if that was true...
Was Saddam Hussein 1-3 years from a nuclear weapon? Was Saddam Hussein an irrational religious fanatic who believed it was his duty to bring about the apocalypse? No.
It is true and chemical weapons in the hands of terrorists is every bit as bad as a nuclear weapon, and Saddam is just as irrational, he invaded Kuwait and actually thought he could defend it against the entire world.
It's been 10,000 insurgents for a long time. There's no sign of any DECLINE in the insurgency, thus proving that simply leaving troops in the country doesn't make it magically go away.
And you want to leave it for the insurgents to take it over? Good call.
Well we don't have 15 years to *****foot around in Iraq. There are other, more pressing threats to our national security.
Why can't we do both?
And they thanked us by electing Islamists allied with our most dangerous enemy.
No they didn't. While some Islamists may have gotten elected that is not true of the entire Iraqi government, and no one ever said that this would be a U.S. Democracy it's of course going to be a uniquely Iraqi Democracy in line with their customs and traditions, the same as Japans Democracy, Germany's Democracy, and Russias Democracy, they are all Democracies but a true Democracy can't help but reflect the culture of the population that it represents.
Not true. What other US president in modern times did the rest of the world hate as much as George Bush?
Every president since and including LBJ.
It's not just crooks and dictators that hate George Bush. It's the citizens of every other country in the world.
Fuc/k them too. I really don't care what socialists, Communists, Nazis, and Muslim fanatics who are jealous of U.S. global supremacy think about us. Lucky for us the world doesn't get a say in who we vote in for president.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
It wasn't based on lies. It was based on Saddam's weapons programs, his support of terrorists, his ties to AlQaeda, the genocide and attrocities which occurred under his regime, his continious threatening of his neighbors, and his flagrant disregard for the U.N. resolutions placed against him.
Threatening your neighbors isn't justification for war, when everyone knows damn well that you can't actually do anything. Atrocities within Iraq are nasty, but they don't justify committing 150,000 American troops and hundreds of billions of dollars.

The other things are just bullshit justifications that the Bush Administration made up and you bought.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
It is true and chemical weapons in the hands of terrorists is every bit as bad as a nuclear weapon, and Saddam is just as irrational, he invaded Kuwait and actually thought he could defend it against the entire world.
Actually he didn't think he'd have to defend it against the entire world. He was mistakenly told by the ambassador that the United States wouldn't intervene. Had he known that, he probably wouldn't have invaded.

He's very grandiose and conspiracy-oriented, but he wasn't an irrational character in terms of realpolitik.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
And you want to leave it for the insurgents to take it over? Good call.
If the choice is between that or letting Iran get nukes, then yes.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Why can't we do both?
I would have no problem with doing both if we have the resources. But obviously the president disagrees, since he has been a spineless ***** in dealing with Iran. So if for some reason we need to move troops from Iraq to Iran, so be it.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
No they didn't. While some Islamists may have gotten elected that is not true of the entire Iraqi government, and no one ever said that this would be a U.S. Democracy it's of course going to be a uniquely Iraqi Democracy in line with their customs and traditions, the same as Japans Democracy, Germany's Democracy,
You're missing the point. They elected Islamists allied with Iran. Democracy does not cure all of the world's problems.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
and Russias Democracy, they are all Democracies
:rofl :lol: :lol:

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
but a true Democracy can't help but reflect the culture of the population that it represents.
They...elected...Islamists...

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Every president since and including LBJ.
That's not true. The amount of anti-Americanism in the world has surged through the roof since George Bush took office.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Kandahar said:
Threatening your neighbors isn't justification for war, when everyone knows damn well that you can't actually do anything. Atrocities within Iraq are nasty, but they don't justify committing 150,000 American troops and hundreds of billions of dollars.

The other things are just bullshit justifications that the Bush Administration made up and you bought.
Actually no they're not everything I listed was true.
Actually he didn't think he'd have to defend it against the entire world. He was mistakenly told by the ambassador that the United States wouldn't intervene. Had he known that, he probably wouldn't have invaded.
That's bullshit it's been proven to be Iraqi propoganda even an Iraqi higher up who was present at the meeting has said that the transcript from the memo had been Doctored to make it seem as if the Ambassador gave the Iraqis permission, in real life we told Saddam in no uncertain terms that if he invaded the U.S. would respond with military force.
He's very grandiose and conspiracy-oriented, but he wasn't an irrationalcharacter in terms of realpolitik.
No Saddam only started two insane wars that he had no hopes of winning. But he wasn't irrational, :roll: the fact of the matter is that Saddam continued to misjudge the geo-political environment and it cost the lives of millions of people and we couldn't take the chance that he would do something stupid yet again liking giving WMD to terrorists.
If the choice is between that or letting Iran get nukes, then yes.
You're really unbelievable if you think that there is any justification what so ever for leaving Iraq or Iran as a stateless Nation and a safe haven for terrorists to gather and plan attacks against the U.S. and our allies. The reason why we were attacked on 9-11 is because O.B.L. had the stateless country of Afghanistan to recrute, plan, and put into action the attacks.
I would have no problem with doing both if we have the resources. But obviously the president disagrees, since he has been a spineless ***** in dealing with Iran. So if for some reason we need to move troops from Iraq to Iran, so be it.
How so? The President refuses to even negotiate with the Iranians he has taken a hardliners stance on Iran.
You're missing the point. They elected Islamists allied with Iran. Democracy does not cure all of the world's problems.
They haven't allied with Iran you're nuts maybe a few elected officials have made ovetures to Iran but not by any means the majority of the elected Iraqi officials.
:rofl :lol: :lol:



They...elected...Islamists...
They didn't only elect Islamists. And like I said, of course their government is going to reflect their culture.
That's not true. The amount of anti-Americanism in the world has surged through the roof since George Bush took office.
Bullshit the world has been against the U.S. since the fall of the Soviet Union, and you know what? Like I said I don't really give a sh!t what a bunch of impotent, commies, nazis, and Islamic fundamentalists think of us.

If it wasn't for us they'de be speaking German, Russian, or Japanese by now so fuc/k them.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
That's bullshit it's been proven to be Iraqi propoganda even an Iraqi higher up who was present at the meeting has said that the transcript from the memo had been Doctored to make it seem as if the Ambassador gave the Iraqis permission, in real life we told Saddam in no uncertain terms that if he invaded the U.S. would respond with military force.
Everything that goes against your ridiculously stupid worldview is always propaganda by some political force you're against. Just like Pinochet was a hero who was smeared by Marxist propaganda, right? Just like the Contras were freedom fighters, right? You're funny. :lol:

The bottom line is, whether the US Ambassador actually miscommunicated the message or whether Saddam misinterpreted it, he would have acted differently if he thought the United States would retaliate.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
No Saddam only started two insane wars that he had no hopes of winning.
Based on what he knew at the time, it wasn't entirely irrational (if a little optimistic in the case of Iran) to assume he could win both wars he started.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
But he wasn't irrational, :roll: the fact of the matter is that Saddam continued to misjudge the geo-political environment and it cost the lives of millions of people and we couldn't take the chance that he would do something stupid yet again liking giving WMD to terrorists.
There were no terrorists in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Why do you have to lie so much?

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
You're really unbelievable if you think that there is any justification what so ever for leaving Iraq or Iran as a stateless Nation and a safe haven for terrorists to gather and plan attacks against the U.S. and our allies. The reason why we were attacked on 9-11 is because O.B.L. had the stateless country of Afghanistan to recrute, plan, and put into action the attacks.
The more pressing concern is stopping Iran from obliterating the Middle East. If regime change in Iran leaves an anarchy in Iran and/or Iraq, well, we'll burn that bridge when we come to it.

This also overlooks the point that both Iran and Iraq are ALREADY terrorist havens.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
How so? The President refuses to even negotiate with the Iranians he has taken a hardliners stance on Iran.
There's a difference between taking a hardline stance and ignoring the problem. Occasionally calling Iran "evil" doesn't cut it. They're getting closer to nuclear weapons every day, and all our president does is play down the danger to the media and pretend the problem doesn't exist. He's not even preparing for war with Iran. Unless he's planning some kind of surprise attack, I'm gonna say he's a spineless *****.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
They haven't allied with Iran you're nuts maybe a few elected officials have made ovetures to Iran but not by any means the majority of the elected Iraqi officials.
No, the Shia Islamists in Iraq have nothing in common with the Shia Islamists in Iran. :roll:

A few of Sistani's closer allies may not be Iranophilic, but most of the Shiites are.
 

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Tell me sir other than what was stated what would you consider as winning? We are winning and we have been winning since day one.
Yeah, right....and what brand of happy pill did your doctor prescribe?

The TRUTH is some things are going well, and some things have been a disaster. Get over the propaganda bullshit and try to deal in facts, it's not that hard...

Please prove to me that "almost all Public Schools are open." Also please address that less people have electricity than before the war. How come people in Iraq have to wait on incredibly long lines to get gas and even then it's rationed?

As far as the Sunnis go, do you really want us to believe that they're not strongly behind the insurgency and that instead they will adhere to the Shiite's dominance of the government?

Get real! BTW - See the latest approval ratings for Bush?

Wash. Post / Time Magazine poll from 1-27-06:

1. Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president? Do you approve/disapprove strongly or somewhat?


HTML:
             -------- Approve --------   ------- Disapprove ------    No   
             NET   Strongly   Somewhat   NET   Somewhat   Strongly   opin.
1/26/06      42       25         17      56       14         42        2
How about Iraq which you base this thread on:

HTML:
16. All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?

             --- Worth fighting ---       --- Not worth fighting --      No     
            NET   Strongly   Somewhat     NET   Somewhat   Strongly      op. 
1/26/06     44       32         12        55       13         42          1
Code:
2. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling (ITEM)?

1/26/06  - Summary Table*

                                                  Approve    Disapprove    No op.
a. The situation in Iraq                             39          60          1
b. The US campaign against terrorism                 52          45          2
c. The federal budget deficit                        32          64          4
d. Ethics in government                              42          56          2
e. Prescription drug benefits for the elderly        38          51         11
f. The economy                                       46          52          1
g. Immigration issues                                34          57          9
h. Health care                                       37          60          3
i. Taxes                                             45          52          3
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_ethics_012706.htm

Did you happen to notice the ONLY area that Bush has a positive rating is National Defense? What a coincidence that all he talks about is the threat against America. He has to scare Americans to get any support.
 

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
What do you want us to do with Iran? I thought you were all for peace and love try to stay consistent here you can't be for a war with Iran and against the war in Iraq. It's two peas in the same pod, Iran doesn't have nukes yet they only have nuclear programs, and Saddam had WMD programs that is a fact they have been found it's only the stockpiles that are unaccounted for, so now you're saying you want to stop Iran before they get nukes but are against the war in Iraq that stopped Saddam from reconstituting his WMD programs. It's a hypocritical argument.
In a word...BULLSHIT! People who oppose the Iraq war do not disapprove of the Afghanistan War. We disapprove because Bush lied, soldiers died, and we have no business being in Iraq. Iran is tricky, 80 million people...Invading IRaq is not something that is viable as long as we're getting killed in Iraq...Bush, the moron, has depleted our force so much that when a genuine threat like Iran surfaces we are incapable of responding because Bush has us in IRaq, which was never a threat. He's a fool.
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
What do you want white flags? It's 27 million Iraqis vs. 10,000 insurgents which side would you bet on?
Think you're able to provide one shred of evidence to back up this untruth? You have a habit of making brash statements that have zero facts nor any links to make up the bluster. Until you prove what you write is fact based all that your posts are in reality are opinions, they certainly have no or very little truth in them.

In a September report published in November by the Wash. Post it suggests there are 30,000 fighting insurgents in Iraq, with only 4%-10% being from outside of Iraq...here's the article...prove me wrong...

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111602519.html

That's 3 times the number you posted and it also doesn't mention that approximately 5 million Sunnis support the actions of these 30,000 insurgents. Your making up numbers, they're untrue.


Trajan Octavian Titus said:
It's not Bush that the world hates it's America and that's the way it's always been, we can have anyone in power and the French, Germans, and Russians will still hate us and you know what screw them they had back door oil treaties with Saddam under the oil for food scandal talk about credibility issues.
:rofl I've spent my entire adult life traveling outside the USA. I spend an average of 100 days a year away. Non-Americans HATE Bush, not Americans. They loved Clinton, Reagan, Carter. They hate BUSH. Your premise that governments would sell out the USA to get oil from Iraq is ridiculous. You have this habit of making broad brush stroke accusations that you never back up with any links. I love your approach to diplomacy, "Screw them." :2funny:
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
I could really give to sh!ts what these two bit crooks and dictators think of us, these peoples agenda is to bring the U.S. down to there level they're p!ssed that we're the worlds soul super power and they want us to be defeated, well fuc/k them.
Wow! So France, Germany, Italy, et al are dictatorships in your view of the world? Creditable idea, very creditable. It's interesting that you seem to support "democracy in Iraq" but call mature democracies like France dictatorships? Your posts are funny to read, they're like a stream of unconsciousness.
 
Last edited:

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Re: What Bush should say in the State of the Union Address?

I'm sorry would be a nice start.
 

libertarian_knight

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
997
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
"I stand here, before Congress and the American People to tell you, I Quit." -Dream GWB speech
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Kandahar said:
They killed more American soldiers, which is what the President of the United States should be concerned about.
I don't remember the president saying he isn't concerned about the men and women who have died? Can you give us a link?
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
libertarian_knight said:
"I stand here, before Congress and the American People to tell you, I Quit." -Dream GWB speech
I love the liberal platform. Forward thinking, realistic, solution driven. :roll:
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
libertarian_knight said:
Useless...
I agree, it is useless. Even Obama said recently that his own party has no direction.
 
Top Bottom