President Bush's Address to the Nation

[poeticDaVinci]

First off, for the most part, I take a liberal stance in most subjects, but the war in Iraq is not one of them. I hold more of a "love the warrior, hate the war" opinion. I believe that President Bush's points are valid. Specifically his one about setting a deadline in withdrawing our troops from Iraq. I'm sure everybody has heard the saying "history has a way of repeating itself," or some version of that. It's my belief that if we withdraw from Iraq too soon, that doing so would be a severe error on the part of the United States. If we were to withdraw the troops from Iraq before there is a stable Democratic government in place and before their military is strong enough to fend on its own, then we would be setting the table for another Sadam-like regime.

What are your opinions on this topic?

 

[poeticDaVinci]

First off, for the most part, I take a liberal stance in most subjects, but the war in Iraq is not one of them. I hold more of a "love the warrior, hate the war" opinion. I believe that President Bush's points are valid. Specifically his one about setting a deadline in withdrawing our troops from Iraq. I'm sure everybody has heard the saying "history has a way of repeating itself," or some version of that. It's my belief that if we withdraw from Iraq too soon, that doing so would be a severe error on the part of the United States. If we were to withdraw the troops from Iraq before there is a stable Democratic government in place and before their military is strong enough to fend on its own, then we would be setting the table for another Sadam-like regime.

What are your opinions on this topic?

 

[Glockmatic]

i watched canadian parliment instead, vote on gay marriage passed

 

[Glockmatic]

i watched canadian parliment instead, vote on gay marriage passed

 

[Kareem]

unfortunately Iraq is screwed either way, but a time table does need to be set, america will get the blame for Iraqs failure as it should, Bush is was an always will be an idoit for invading Iraq, Iraqi civil war is inevitable.

 

[Kareem]

unfortunately Iraq is screwed either way, but a time table does need to be set, america will get the blame for Iraqs failure as it should, Bush is was an always will be an idoit for invading Iraq, Iraqi civil war is inevitable.

 

[buckem85]

^canada is gay

 

[buckem85]

^canada is gay

 

[S. Fourteen]

^canada is gay

Thanks for the input idiot. Do us a favor and stay out of WoW.


Topic:

Yes, they should stay as long as they have to.

 

[S. Fourteen]

^canada is gay

Thanks for the input idiot. Do us a favor and stay out of WoW.


Topic:

Yes, they should stay as long as they have to.

 

[The.Menace]

If we were to withdraw the troops from Iraq before there is a stable Democratic government in place and before their military is strong enough to fend on its own, then we would be setting the table for another Sadam-like regime.

Yeah, the question is when will this be the case or will this ever be the case? What the Us and their leader lack of is understanding that you're dealin with different people there. Don't want to diss noone but you're talkin about arabs, a different culture. It's not like you can say, let's stay there 2 more years then they'll accept democray and our western lifestyle. It's simple not like that. I seriously doubt there will be a stable democracy down there withinthe next 20 years.

 

[The.Menace]

If we were to withdraw the troops from Iraq before there is a stable Democratic government in place and before their military is strong enough to fend on its own, then we would be setting the table for another Sadam-like regime.

Yeah, the question is when will this be the case or will this ever be the case? What the Us and their leader lack of is understanding that you're dealin with different people there. Don't want to diss noone but you're talkin about arabs, a different culture. It's not like you can say, let's stay there 2 more years then they'll accept democray and our western lifestyle. It's simple not like that. I seriously doubt there will be a stable democracy down there withinthe next 20 years.

 

[Khaled]

there's still a long way to go...

Democracy will not be instored overnight, and Iraq will need a few years to become stable. During this time, The US will wet the blame for all the problems.
But i don't think Bush cares, since he was already reelected.

 

[Khaled]

there's still a long way to go...

Democracy will not be instored overnight, and Iraq will need a few years to become stable. During this time, The US will wet the blame for all the problems.
But i don't think Bush cares, since he was already reelected.

 

[The.Menace]

Well not only the blame for all the problems but also spend money and lose soldiers over this and like I said above, I doubt that a couple of more years will get the job done.

 

[The.Menace]

Well not only the blame for all the problems but also spend money and lose soldiers over this and like I said above, I doubt that a couple of more years will get the job done.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

I didn't get to see the whole thing but I've seen parts & so far I'm left with these same old questions:

1. What the fuck does 9/11 have to do with the illegal occupation of Iraq?
2. What the fuck does Osama bin Laden have to do with Iraqi civilians who do not want to be oppressed &, as such, take up arms?
3. At which point did British troops withdraw from Iraq?

The answers, as far I can see, are:
1. Nothing, except Bush knows he could convince Americans to eat their children, provided he says "9/11" enough times.
2. Nothing, except Bush uses bin Laden to keep 9/11 an open wound.
3. British troops never withdrew but Bush likes to convey the message of "us against the world (who are trying to hurt us)". Granted I never saw it all, but it was "Americans" & "US troops" & not one mention of the coalition.

Anyway, the point he raises about staying in Iraq is all well & good. It is true that to say that the coalition (note: not just American) is leaving at a certain date would lead to the "insurgents" - namely Iraqi civilians - calming down and.......wait, is it just me or did Bush himself say they can't give a date because then there'd be peace? Yes, he did. Although he did so on the premise that as soon as the US troops (coalition you twat) the "insurgents" would take over, if he would just step back & shake the paranoia he would realize that the "insurgents" are people who don't want their country raped & as this is the case, it would be in their interest to remain peaceful as long as possible. But this of course goes against the plague of fear Bush wishes to spread.

And foregoing the opportunity to laugh while choking on my own vomit at the justifications continuously put forth - such as the raping of Iraq is for "the security of America" - I'll press on with this "get the job done" bullshit. I don't know if the fool notices, but US troops are still dying in Afghanistan. You can't put your meddling hand in the Middle East & not get burned. This part of the world doesn't bow down to Yankee authority like that - with the exception of one or two powerful individuals (like the Saudi royal family but not necessarily the Saudi people). British troops are still in Afghanistan also AND Kosovo. Some war experts have estimated that it will most likely take 12 years before it will be "suitable" - going by Bush's definition - to leave Iraq. And that's provided EVERYTHING goes to plan.

Oh well, good thing sand soaks up blood so efficiently.

 

[Zero Cool]

1. What the fuck does 9/11 have to do with the illegal occupation of Iraq?
2. What the fuck does Osama bin Laden have to do with Iraqi civilians who do not want to be oppressed &, as such, take up arms?
3. At which point did British troops withdraw from Iraq?

1) From a strategic point of view, Iraq is smack bang in the middle of terrorist territory. Everyone knows the war was never about WMD's or freeing Iraqi's however gracious these goals are, it was about removing a maniac dictator who posed a direct threat to both U.S. and Israeli security. In the post-9/11 climate such a threat could not be left to burgeon as it could pre-9/11. The added bonus was Iraq is at the heart of the enemy's base and can as such be used as a base to supress terrorism and foster Democracy. The effects are already being shown in Lebanon, Iraq and now even Egypt.

2) Iraqi civilans who don't want to be oppressed? OK. That would be why many of these same "civilians" aren't even Iraqi but foreign jihadists sent in by Bin Laden under the supervision of al-Zawhiri. Secondly, exactly how are any Iraqi civilians being oppressed? Unless they're involved (or suspected of being involved) in helping the insurgents/terrorists, Iraqi civilans suffer no oppression unless it's under the hands of the terrorists who are daily slaughtering thousands of innocent people.

3) 10,000 British troops are still serving in Iraq, the coalition was mentioned a number of times in Bush's speech.

 

[BC_BIGBUDZ420]

1) From a strategic point of view, Iraq is in smack bang in the middle of terrorist territory. Everyone knows the war was never about WMD's or freeing Iraqi's however gracious these goals are, it was about removing a maniac dictator who posed a direct threat to both U.S. and Israeli security. In the post-9/11 climate such a threat could not be left to burgeon as it could pre-9/11. The added bonus was Iraq is at the heart of the enemy's base and can as such be used as a base to supress terrorism and foster Democracy. The effects are already being shown in Lebanon, Iraq and now even Egypt.

2) Iraqi civilans who don't want to be oppressed? OK. That would be why many of these same "civilians" aren't even Iraqi but foreign jihadists sent in by Bin Laden under the supervision of al-Zawhiri. Secondly, exactly how are any Iraqi civilians being oppressed? Unless they're involved (or suspected of being involved) in helping the insurgents/terrorists, Iraqi civilans suffer no oppression unless it's under the hands of the terrorists who are daily slaughtering thousands of innocent people.

3) 10,000 British troops are still serving in Iraq, the coalition was mentioned a number of times in Bush's speech.

saddam was not a direct threat because he had no WMD and a pathetic armed forces

so please explain how this is a direct threat to your security

your just repeating the same bs scare tactics bush has been feeding you


not only has this war been a complete disaster, now you and isreal are bigger targets because most of the muslim world hates you

you just invade whomever you wish, take there oil and tell the american people it was for there security

there are many evil people in power in this world, and your president is no differen

so quit trying to excuse america being world police just because your media has made you a little scared

if you want security vote for some1 that will mend your relations with the rest of the world, not further divide the gap that allready exists

wow now that just might be a good idea

 

[Zero Cool]

saddam was not a direct threat because he had no WMD and a pathetic armed forces

so please explain how this is a direct threat to your security

your just repeating the same bs scare bush has been feeding you


not only has this war been a complete disaster, now you and isreal are bigger targets because most of the muslim world hates you

you just invade whomever you wish, take there oil and tell the american people it was for there security

Haven't seen you around for a while BC still spouting the same left-wing propaganda I see