Bush's Speech

Most of the Euro-pacifists have now been repudiated by their own governments. <img src="graemlins/goodwork.gif" border="0" alt="[Good Job]" />
 
What I'm for, all in all, is a bullet in Osama's brain. His and all his terrorist buddy freaks.

I am not for bombing anyone. Despite the pain we feel, and our instinctual need for vengence, we need to be careful. And we should set an example for the rest of the world on how civilized nations should act, even when dealing with the uncivilized.

If any innocent civilian is killed in Afghanistan, then we too become the terrorist, for that Afghan life means every bit as much as the life of some poor soul on the 100th floor of a Trade Center building.

I've heard numerous ways to rationalize it, but if we kill some guys little boy there, then he has all the right to revenge that we do. We are the terrorist, and he is the victim. Then when he kills someone here in the name of vengeance, we have the right to kill him. Ridiculous. Primitive.
 
If you doubt that there is a lack of resolve here to wage a tough war if it means collateral civilian casualties, remember this. There were fighters scrambled to protect Washington and NYC and other potential targets shortly after the attack; they were not up there for show. We were going to, if necessary, shoot down our own passenger aircraft which had been hijacked and were heading to a target, to intentionaly kill hundreds of our own citizens taken hostage, as collateral casualties, in order to save thousands. (And do not any idiot suggest their is anyway, from outside an aircraft hijacked by SUICIDE terroists, to force it down safely) That is a real war gentlemen, and an unequivicable sign that this war WILL BE waged to a conclusion, even at the risk or CERTAIN COST of collateral casualties. We WILL kill our own citzens who are held hostage when under military necesity; do you imagine we will not do so to those around enemy terrorists? It is a clear sign to anyone with the least knowledge and desire for self presevation to escape the vicinity of our potential targets as soon as possible and at high risk in doing so. No foe we have ver faced or likely will face had more resovle, dedication, battle courage, and unwillingness to admit defeat than Imperial Japan, whose soldiers and civlians ofter commited suicide en masse to avoid surrender or capture. They had much more resourses to bear than the international terrorists now do. Yet, refusing any halfway settlements, at enormous cost, we utterly crushed them and ended their capacity for armed threat for generations. Pearl Harbor was not nearly the level of hurt or insult that was delivered to USA as that on Sept. 11. Does any rational person think we will not fight this war to a conclusion, smashing through any obstacles that present themselves, like hostages, human sheilds, or colateral casualties?
 
China has now indicated it would be willing to join the anti terroist coalition if it recieves UN approval. Anybody now willing to bet that the crushing of internatinal terrorism is likely in the next ten years?
 
Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola:<br /><strong>Anybody now willing to bet that the crushing of internatinal terrorism is likely in the next ten years?</strong><hr></blockquote>

it won't happen, too many people hate each other to ever come together. there will always be some sicko/wacko out there willing to kill others because (s)he feels they aren't treated fairly. the world is an imperfect place, i can't see that ever changing
 
I wouldn't say the day will never come, but if anyone thinks terrorism can be wiped out by military force, as a result of what's happened this week, then you have another thing coming.

For one thing violence begats violence. Often much worse violence.

Another thread had many posts with the words to songs. Listen to Imagine by John Lennon. If there were no countries and no gods, there would be far less violence, but there would still be nuts out there who think they have the right to steal lives to suit their purposes.
 
Originally posted by VoodooAce:<br /><strong>Listen to Imagine by John Lennon.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yep, Yep, he is my prime source for for policies on geo-politics and international security.

<img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
 
Most of you don't seem to understand.

The time for talk is over.

We (the US) is at war.

Our congress will shortly announce that any government that aids terror, in any way, physical, or finacial, will be considered a legit target.

All such nations that do not destroy terrorists withen their borders will be considered beligerents.

All this debate is pointless.

They will comply or die.

This is not retoric.

The congress told this to Fox news this very night.
 
Originally posted by VoodooAce:<br /><strong>

Instead of seeing Democrats stand tall and proclaim support for our President, you'd have Republicans already pointing fingers and saying it's all the Democrats' fault that this could happen in America.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yep... LOL ! Exactly. I too am glad that Gore is not in charge here.. as the man is timid & does not know his own mind. I don't think W. has much of one..mind that is. It is in times like this that the real leaders stand out.. & make the front men look ridiculous.

My nominations are: Rudolph Giuliani, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfield, & Tony Blair..with a possible nod to Tom Daschle.

Dog
 
The best men never get to be president it seems - Colin Powell should be the man in charge but he did not want to open his private life to such scrutiny plus there is too much racism in America to ever elect him, unfortunately.
 
Originally posted by Magnus:<br /><strong>The best men never get to be president it seems - Colin Powell should be the man in charge but he did not want to open his private life to such scrutiny plus there is too much racism in America to ever elect him, unfortunately.</strong><hr></blockquote>

That last bit is false, he would be a shoe in if he had the courage to run. But he has always been more of a manager and bureaucrat than a leader. Campaign politics is too messy and nasty for him, so far, desoite great pressure on him from both the public and his party.

[ September 14, 2001: Message edited by: Lefty Scaevola ]</p>
 
Most disturbing to me - Bush gave the Taliban $43 million four months ago, as a "reward"

For assisting w/ capturing bin Lauden? Nope.

For assisting with the 'war on drugs' by killing rural farmers growing opium poppies.

All I can hope - - this type of situation forces a new assessment of the madness that has substituate for US foreign policy.

In peace -<br />Ashoka
 
Originally posted by Ashoka:<br /><strong>Most disturbing to me - Bush gave the Taliban $43 million four months ago, as a "reward"

For assisting w/ capturing bin Lauden? Nope.

For assisting with the 'war on drugs' by killing rural farmers growing opium poppies.

All I can hope - - this type of situation forces a new assessment of the madness that has substituate for US foreign policy.

In peace -<br />Ashoka</strong><hr></blockquote>

<br />Strange the things that arent in the news<br /> <img src="graemlins/GoofyFrown.gif" border="0" alt="[Goofy Frown]" />
 
Strange - but are you surprised?

One thing our non-American poster always talk about, and it's true - the US media is often *very* selective in their reporting. The Internet has been so great for a news junkie like me. Digital cable, with acess to BBC, CBC, and some others has been even better. My Spanish is pretty good, so I pick up some there as well.

But in all honesty - at this point, it would be stupid for any news source or politician to make an issue of this. All I hope is that some legislator is able to tactfully *remind* the Republicans about this next time Bush is tempted to fund ineffective, non-reasoned right-wing agenda items like this.

(Before the flames - I agree there are also ineffective, non-reasoned left-wing agenda items as well.)

<br />Ashoka
 
Well, the media isn't exactly left..(Rush and others love to say it is, tho!!)

It seems to me to be more of a civil liberties thing - since the media is very dependent on First Ammendment/Free Speech rights, related stuff (the 'socially liberal' agenda) is certainly part of their agenda - feminism, abortion rights, gay issues, etc all fall in the bigger 'free speech' umbrella.

On other stuff the US media is certainly *not* to the left - US business interests get a big pass on some of the stupid things they do.. and a lot of dumb things done by the US govt, no matter who is in the White House, seems to be played down here. The BBC oftne covers US isses better than US media does - US media seems to like to focus on sports and entertainment 'news.'

Anyway, I guess I don't agree that Bush=whimp . . but I am still a little concerned. OF all of them, I REALLY wish McCain was president right now - I would feel much better!
 
"Juize is 14."

No wonder he shows no respect.... (No offense to the other teenagers here, most of you seem BEYOND your years.)

Bush was NOT my first choice for president--if the repubs had nominated McCain, I would have voted republican for the first time in a presidential race--but right now I am behind him, and I don't think I'll be disappointed.... He'll certainly "grow up" a lot in the coming weeks and months--this war will either break a character or build it strong, and I hope and pray for the latter for Bush. And as has been said, the Presidency is more than a man--it's bigger than ANY man that can fill it.... He has more than capable people around him, and the people to support him now. It is OUR war, and we will do it right--we'll make sure of that. Like in my Navy days, we are a team, all contributing our strengths. And we collectively know what must be done. Americans can squabble senselessly among each other a lot of times, but when something like THIS happens, we are like a mafia family in our disciplined fierceness to protect our own....
 
I'd like to echo Allan's statements almost completely. Didn't vote for the man, and I do have some questions as to his individual ability, but he does have experienced people helping him through this. He will be fine.

I'm a fairly liberal guy, but I would have actually voted Republican had McCain won the nomination. That says as much about him as it does about Gore, unfortunately.

Allan, you didn't vote for Nader, did you? <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">

[ September 14, 2001: Message edited by: VoodooAce ]</p>
 
Originally posted by jiml_63:<br /><strong>Would you rather have that tree hugging pansy Gore in charge? I think not!!!!</strong><hr></blockquote><br />finally, some more republican spirit on this board. Gore would not known what do have done if he were president and I think former president clinton knows that too(just a guess). Clinton's been telling the American people to trust Bush's decision
 
Back
Top Bottom