I think it was an excellent speach, and he made each case quite well, especially on Iraq.
The State of the Union
- Thread starter BurlyShirley
- Start date
Suprisingly enough, I agree.
I was particularly impressed with the section about subsidizing AIDS medication and education in Africa.
I had my issues with most of the domestic policy, but it was nonetheless much better than I've come to expect from Shrub.
i liked the speech as well. the aids bit was totally out of left field -- my cynical side says he must have thrown it in there to pacify the black congressional elements for some unknown reason. it is a great thing to do, sure, but it, along with all of the other EXPENSIVE programs he put forth, seems an odd choice when we are cutting taxes and running up a huge deficit.
pure VooDoo
cut Gov Income, fund expensive programs then spend billions preparing and or going to war the national debt will go through the roof
how do you fund this stuff Print more money? Sell Captured Iraqi oil?
bingo. i think we have a winner (option 2, of course, along with option 1 as always). a piece in the nyt a few days back discussed how there are two camps over what should be done with the oil revenues -- there are those in favor of returning the proceeds to help rebuild iraq and establish a new govt, against those (cheney in particular, how surprising...
) who want to use the proceeds to pay for the us military expenses.
Are they taking orders for "Euphrates-front" time shares yet?
Originally posted by Toshi
bingo. i think we have a winner (option 2, of course, along with option 1 as always). a piece in the nyt a few days back discussed how there are two camps over what should be done with the oil revenues -- there are those in favor of returning the proceeds to help rebuild iraq and establish a new govt, against those (cheney in particular, how surprising...
I agree, the speach was well done.... instilled a little bit of confidence for me in him.
But, then I remember that people with mal, or misplaced intentions will present their case in the best possible light... And to a lesser extreme, people with different motivations, different axes to grind, different problem solving approaches will show themselves in the most agreeable way.
(not wording this too well) Like, if I hear a republican speach that somebody's giving somewhere, I'll usually agree with what they say.. Same applies to democrats, greenies, etc. Yes, wasteful spending is bad. Having a big government is bad. Helping people with AIDS is good. Creating jobs for the economy is good. Ending doubly taxed dividends is good (I guess). Fighting bad dictators is good. Defending America is good. Finding out where some unnaccounted antrax and VX gas is, is also good.
These things are all agreeable, but how we go about them, and our motivations for approaching some of them (Iraq in particular) is what defines .....
bla bla bla (time for "reign of fire" on dvd)
I liked Locke's democratic response better.
But, then I remember that people with mal, or misplaced intentions will present their case in the best possible light... And to a lesser extreme, people with different motivations, different axes to grind, different problem solving approaches will show themselves in the most agreeable way.
(not wording this too well) Like, if I hear a republican speach that somebody's giving somewhere, I'll usually agree with what they say.. Same applies to democrats, greenies, etc. Yes, wasteful spending is bad. Having a big government is bad. Helping people with AIDS is good. Creating jobs for the economy is good. Ending doubly taxed dividends is good (I guess). Fighting bad dictators is good. Defending America is good. Finding out where some unnaccounted antrax and VX gas is, is also good.
These things are all agreeable, but how we go about them, and our motivations for approaching some of them (Iraq in particular) is what defines .....
bla bla bla (time for "reign of fire" on dvd)
I liked Locke's democratic response better.
Ok, Reign of Fire is over. One thing that totally caught my attention in his speach, and was particularly disturbed by was the phrase:
"And many others have met a different fate. Put it this way... they are no longer a problem for the United States and our friends and allies."
Is this our first openly expressed, happy endorsement of murder?
Or are these just enemy casualties of our "war on terror"?
Should we start singing, BRRAAAA----ZIIIILLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!??(from "brazil")
"And many others have met a different fate. Put it this way... they are no longer a problem for the United States and our friends and allies."
Is this our first openly expressed, happy endorsement of murder?
Or are these just enemy casualties of our "war on terror"?
Should we start singing, BRRAAAA----ZIIIILLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!??(from "brazil")
Additionally the "many" refers to SUSPECTED terrorists, according to his speech. He flat out stated we have been executing people around the world without trial. It doesn't matter if these were not US citizens, if they did not engage us in combat at the time of discovery, they should have been arrested and brought to trial. Yeah, good luck with that "coalition," consisting of.... us and 1/3 of great britain.
Hey I never said I liked the guy, or that what he's doing is right. I just think our little Bush is growing up. Getting better... stronger, bigger, faster. Soon he'll be able to snort that ol' Saddam right out of Iraq like a big pile of coke.
As for the AIDS thing... yes it was obvious that he's hoping to win over some bleeding hearts... trade lives in Africa for lives in the Middle East; however, he's now publicly endorsed that approach. He might take it back when funding get's tight in say, 2 weeks, but it's now legitimized as not JUST a liberal cause. AIDS in Africa will still be an problem when this Iraq thing ends; now it will be much easier to start fixing it.
...coming off" notice posted for the benefit of Osama, Saddam, Kim Jong Il, and anyone else who would do us harm. Israeli and Russian special paramilitary units have earned a reputation with terrorists as being difficult to bargain with. It appears as if we are going to toughen-up our stance to similar levels. Civil liberties will take this one on the chin, but during dangerous times, decisiveness is required. A tough trade-off but we need hit back so hard that these punks realize that it's not gonna be and eye-for-an-eye anymore...it's gonna be an eye-for-an-organ.
Oh you know, you're right.
They should have judges on the battlefield to decide which armed terrorists to shoot.
Yes, they are casualties in a war. A war that, so far, has claimed the lives of more Americans (citing Sept11 as the beginning) than terrorists.
Just stop to think for a second about what the US military is capable of, and appreciate the amount of restraint it took not to obliterate everything in sight.
That may be what happens in Iraq, but i doubt it.
Thanks for the lesson, general. We're not talking about a battlefield. Of course you shoot the enemy in IN COMBAT.Originally posted by BurlySurly
They should have judges on the battlefield to decide which armed terrorists to shoot.
If an enemy soldier is discovered but does not engage us in combat, we are required by international law to take the soldier as a POW. To do otherwise sets a very dangerous precedent (which is why the law exists in the first place). It also is just plain stupid, as POWs are routinely used as bargaining chips, as well as providing valuable info. If suspected guilty of a crime (which all of the aforementioned are) they are then tried before a court for war crimes.
I would agree with you, if we were fighting a traditional war. That is, a clear recognized opponent. The terrorists breached any sort of rules of engagement, so why should we be held to the rules when they are not? The terrorists are not a recognized nation, and are not subject to the international laws, so we shopudl not follow the laws when dealing with them.
Following the traditional rules of engagement got the Brits wiped out during the Revolutionary War.
*if you are referring to Iraq then my point is moot.
I think we were most certainly "engaged" while in Afghanistan, which is certainly one area Bush was including when talking about delt-with terrorists.
Originally posted by BurlySurly
Oh you know, you're right.
They should have judges on the battlefield to decide which armed terrorists to shoot.
Yes, they are casualties in a war. A war that, so far, has claimed the lives of more Americans (citing Sept11 as the beginning) than terrorists.
Just stop to think for a second about what the US military is capable of, and appreciate the amount of restraint it took not to obliterate everything in sight.
That may be what happens in Iraq, but i doubt it.
This isn't a battlefield.
As for the casualties of both sides--- Is that how we measure success? When we've killed as many of theirs as they've killed ours?
I appreciate that the military used some restraint in response to 9/11--- but this isn't a military state, and although we may have some enormous capabilites, I think our standards should be a little higher than, "Don't we get brownie points for not using nukes?"
Braaazilllllllllllllll!!!!!
Its far too easy too have the conversation about rules of engagement on a message forum on the internet.
My statement was pretty vague. I wasn't equating Mai Lai villagers to suspected terrorists; I was pointing out that "engagement" is two-sided. One-sided engagement is murder in the case of a civilian target and assassination in the case of a strategic target, by definition, even during a war.
First, the civilian leadership of a country that you are war with is a valid target. In most cases, they would be the ones that are responsible for the whole thing. Not the poor sod in the trenches. He is just doing his thing.
Second, it is still far too easy to talk about rules of engagement on the internet. I would never say this normally but for this, until you have been there..... you have little or no standing for an opinion in my eyes.
Absolutely fair enough. I'm not condemning the acts of the soldiers, because as you've pointed out I am unable to put myself in their situation. I'm condemning the policy that put them in that situation, and ESPECIALLY the celebration of those acts by politicians. I can understand people accepting some of this as inevitable... but I will always have a hard time with them celebrating it.
I hope that makes more sense.
Agreed.
Psuedo example, after the gulf war, Bush Sr. threw a victory party for the defeat of Iraq in the Gulf War. During this party, Iraq was pursueing the Kurds through the mountains in helicopter gunships killing the people as they fleed. Our Air Force pilots could only watch, as they were ordered not to fire on the helicopters because the treaty ending the conflict allowed Iraq continued use of their helicopters.
It was messed up watching them celebrate, while they knew peole were being killed because they didnt finish the job. The administration got the victory that they needed and left those people to die. sickening.
