Bush

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by Imported, Nov 19, 2003.

  1. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    Inwood: Interesting speech today.
     
  2. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    gigantikok: Didn't see it. Damn, I wish I hadn't missed it
     
  3. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    Inwood: Now Gig, before I go into this one with you, you need to go back to the other Bush threads and respond to those links I gave to support my points.

    (Actually don't worry, I'll jump into this one anyway, but just want to see if you'll carry through since I know you'll want links on this one too.) ;D
     
  4. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    tracksuitboy: I speak as a Brit who would trust a hungry cobra more than I would Bush.  I have to say that it was an excellent speech.  It was the typical bollocks that all politicians come out with when they tell you what you want to hear: 'we're great friends and we love you 'cause you're fab, we have always loved you and we will always love you.  It proves that, as with all leaders, they have good speech writers!  Blimey, even I would have applauded Bush if I had been there!


    You may know that Blair is taking Bush to his constituency in the north of England today and they are going to have a cozy lunch in a local pub (ah, what a sweet image showing them as "real men doing real men's things".  Blair's Political Agent (local party worker) has just said: it's great that he's bringing the President here because this is where Tony lives and this is home"  More political spin.  Tony doesn't live there.  Before becoming Prime Minister, Tony lived in ... London; he has a house there for when he visits his constituency but that's all it's for.  They're all lying shits.
     
  5. B_JohnTheHorse

    B_JohnTheHorse New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2002
    Messages:
    510
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Male
    I have a question: If the policies were the same but Clinton was still President, would there be such an uproar about this state visit? My point is that Clinton & Bush's policies around the world are not that much different from each other. Thats where the shallowness of these protesters comes up. Like Bush or not, we Are at war with terrorists. If the left has a better solution other than total capitulation then I would love to hear it. There is a reason why the democrats in the US have no answer to oppose the war on terrorists. It's a just war.

    The protesters are right on principal about alot, but they need to provide an alternative and remember, the terrorists' goal is to spread radical islam all around the world.

    That means full beards and burkhas in Riyadh, Mecca, Park Avenue & Covent Garden too!

    Anyone who opposes that can get blown to bits, protesters included.
     
  6. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    Inwood: Being Democrat I'm not against the war. I'm against being lied to about the war.

    But back to the speech. It's an interesting change of policy if Bush actually carries through. But it will cost a lot to go that route. It means he can kiss goodbye the retirement funds from the Saudis. If it's just another No Child Left Behind speech then it's a blip and nothing will come of it.

    It's something I've believed for some time. I'll expand on it later because I just got home and I'm hungry.
     
  7. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    SpeedoGuy: I have a question about the President's recent visit to the UK.

    The news media in the U.S. made a point of reporting that President Bush did not address Parliament during his stay. My question is: Is it unusual for a visiting U.S. President not to address Parliament?

    just interested

    SG
     
  8. Max

    Max New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2002
    Messages:
    938
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    UK
    SG

    Yes, visiting US presidents (and for that matter other visiting heads of state) have on occasion addressed Parliament; though by no means every time.

    But I don't think is so much a case of Clinton being more acceptable over here; more a matter of the extreme divisions over our PM's decision to take us to war and his general "control freakery".
     
  9. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    longtimelurker: [quote author=JohnTheHorse link=board=99;num=1069296164;start=0#4 date=11/21/03 at 08:58:52]I have a question: If the policies were the same but Clinton was still President, would there be such an uproar about this state visit? My point is that Clinton & Bush's policies around the world are not that much different from each other. [/quote]

    Bush had already pissed off half the civilised world before the war on Iraq. He had withdrawn the US from the international criminal court, the Kyoto protocol, imposed (WTO illegal) protectionist steel import tariffs and after being found wrong on this count is about to do the same with China (whilst still harping on about how wonderful 'free trade' is to the rest of the world). In addition he has set up an internationally illegal POW camp under extreme secrecy with reports of torture and maltreatment of prisoners that have now been held for 2 years without family or lawyer access without any charges brought against them or any set release date. He is also trying to bully EU governments into the GM argument, which even though it is accepted in the US, the European nations are still extremely sceptical and are (quite legitimately) waiting for further scientific data before making a final decision.

    I'm sure there are other things as well, but they weren't just anti-war protestors in London this past week, green groups were also involved as well, and I'd expect human rights lobbies as well.

    As for the speech...

    Really it was just a re-hash of everything he has said up until now, but made more Euro-friendly (less mission-from-God and Wild West rampage symbolism than usual). It hasn't really made his arguments stand up any better - it's just a re-iteration of points with no new evidence.

    Bush:
    Yeah, bollocks - give us some multilateralist action to back that up!
     
  10. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    tracksuitboy: LTL has summed up the reasons for there being anti-Bush sentiment superbly.  It isn't just Iraq.

    [quote author=JohnTheHorse link=board=99;num=1069296164;start=0#4 date=11/21/03 at 08:58:52]I have a question: If the policies were the same but Clinton was still President, would there be such an uproar about this state visit? My point is that Clinton & Bush's policies around the world are not that much different from each other[/quote]
    Wrong.  The was in Iraq was always going to happen; the Project for the New American Century proves that; 9/11 gave Bush the excuse.  Clinton & Bush's policies are different.  At least Clinton attempted to bring the two sides in the Middle East together; Bush's plan was unworkable and his administration has not bothered since then.  I do not believe that Clinton would have invaded Iraq; he would probably left it at sabre-rattling.  Moreover I do not believe Clinton would have taken the US out of Kyoto, nor imposed imort tariffs nor taken the US out of the international court ... and so on.

    Unfortunately, Republican presidents have never gone down well in the UK - but then, when you consider that the past few were Bush, Bush, Reagan, Ford and Nixon is that any surprise?

    Absolutely it is but the invasion of Iraq will only exasperate that.  I am sure most people in the UK will support a "war" against terrorists - but not a war to secure oil supplies.
     
  11. jay_too

    jay_too New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    821
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    CA
    John..

    If the left has a better solution other than total capitulation then I would love to hear it. There is a reason why the democrats in the US have no answer to oppose the war on terrorists. It's a just war.

    The protesters are right on principal about alot, but they need to provide an alternative and remember, the terrorists' goal is to spread radical islam all around the world.


    Maybe I can suggest why a moderate is not enamored with the Bush administration.

    First, I disliked the lies that sold the war to the people. This injured Bush's credibility. The proof offered to the American people and to world was ludicrous. They did not do their homework which might have included a quick read of Rhodes' book on building the bomb. Before there was a certainty that a bomb could be built, it was known that a nuclear weapons program would have to be sited adjacent to massive sources of electrical generation. Thus, our first nuclear production facilities were sited in the middle of the TVA and the Bonneville Power Association.

    Second, if we assume that the life-cycle cost of the Bush war is $1+ trillion, it can be argued that funding other programs with this money would result in increased security. What are these? How about energy independence? Incentives to companies and individuals to adopt energy conservation and financial penalties to fail to implement energy conservation. Those idiots in Congress tried to sneak $100,000 depreciation credit through for owners of Humvees. Often you read that the biggest impediment to the adoption of a hydrogen economy is cost of a dispersed infastructure. Well, $500 billion or so would go a long way toward hydrogening-up at 7-11. Energy conservation would make our plants more efficient and perhaps, reverse the shuttering of American manufacturing.

    Third, for all its faults and percieved failures, the U.N. has been and is a force for stability and democratic ideals for 50 years. Only a third-rate intellect [read Bush]would denigerate or threaten the organization that it was risking becoming irrelevant. If there is to be stability in the Middle East, the U.N. will play a principal role. So I would spend some of the billions from NOT going to war on U.N. programs in the region. Personally, I do not think there will be peace in the region until the Israeli-Palestine question is resolved. Resolution is not likely until Sharon is removed; he is as anathema to Palestinians and Arabs as Arafat is to many/most Americans. Resolution of the Palestinian problem will require many billions of dollars to pay for the lands, homes, and businesses seized by Israel after the many wars. Where will the money come from? Not Israel, but the American taxpayer. Will this solve the problem overnight? Nope, there will be a need for educational dna social programs of reconciliation...do I hear more dollars? Oh yea.

    Fourth, homeland security is one example of why we need big government. There is a need to coordinate actions of federal, state, and local agencies and other first responders such as the Red Cross and hospitals. This means continuous training, new equipment and facilities, and more people and agencies. One of the recent deficiencies reported was that checked luggage on airplanes is not screened. Such large and integrated programs can only be funded by the feds.

    Fifth, the armed services should be trained and used to target and destroy terrorist cells around the world. The preemptive strike against small groups of terrorist is appropriate. Unfortunately, for Bush he coulld not find collaboration between Saddam and al Queda; he could not demonstrate that Saddam or Iraq presented a clear and present danger to the U.S. So I have concluded that it is an UNJUST war.

    jay
     
  12. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    longtimelurker: You also brushed upon one of the main things that has confused me about GW pulling out of Kyoto. Surely applying economic pressure to force your own country off of fossil resources is nothing but a good thing? Not only due to reduced pollution and the health benefits it would bring, but also because it would remove the reliance of the US (and dare I say the world) economy upon some of the most politically unstable regimes in the world? And blatantly the best time to do this would be when your main competitors (1st world countries) are doing the same thing - hence if you are forced to do it suddenly in the future you wont have to suffer a huge drop in productivity in relation to your competitors to do so?

    Besides which, there are far better ways of using up our remaining oil reserves than energy production. Most of our consumer products rely on petrochemicals derived from oil (plastics, drugs, dyes etc.), and whereas there are obvious alternative sources for power (wind, solar, hydrogen), there isn't currently any alternative for the petrochemicals that we are so heavily reliant on.
     
  13. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    Inwood: To follow up my initial posts -- a little late -- but still here is a bit.

    I'm not sure how many listened to the speech or read it. (here's the link -- http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031119-1.html)

    It wasn't a great speech. Nothing like the Iron Curtain speech by Churchill or even Eisenhower's military/industrial complex speech. What is interesting is the bit about and here's the quote "We must shake off decades of failed policy in the Middle East. Your nation and mine, in the past, have been willing to make a bargain, to tolerate oppression for the sake of stability. Longstanding ties often led us to overlook the faults of local elites. Yet this bargain did not bring stability or make us safe. It merely bought time, while problems festered and ideologies of violence took hold.

    As recent history has shown, we cannot turn a blind eye to oppression just because the oppression is not in our own backyard. No longer should we think tyranny is benign because it is temporarily convenient. Tyranny is never benign to its victims, and our great democracies should oppose tyranny wherever it is found. (Applause.)

    Now we're pursuing a different course, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East. We will consistently challenge the enemies of reform and confront the allies of terror. We will expect a higher standard from our friends in the region, and we will meet our responsibilities in Afghanistan and in Iraq by finishing the work of democracy we have begun. "


    If enacted this would be a major change in how our government interacts with the larger world. It seems this should have been the focus of the speech. Which is why I don't think it was a great speech. If this is the course W. is wanting to pursue (one I feel is long over due) it might have been better to make sure the speech supported it more. I mean if he's going to use this as a reason for bolstering the case for the Iraq invasion the speech should have been more focused. But that aside, since public speaking isn't W. forté, it will be interesting to see if this policy is reiterated in the near future. It might hold promise. It definitely holds peril if not wisely thought through.

    So anyway this is what I was interested in hearing people comment on.
     
  14. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    str8_nnj: [quote author=tracksuitboy I do not believe that Clinton would have invaded Iraq; he would probably left it at sabre-rattling.  Moreover I do not believe Clinton would have taken the US out of Kyoto, nor imposed imort tariffs nor taken the US out of the international court ... and so on.

    The US Senate voted 95=0 to reject Kyoto under Clinton
    in 96

    and if I may...Benjamin Disraeli, Britain's prime minister (1868, l874-l880), said: "Nations have no friends, only interests."



    some day I'll learn how to use it...(the quote)...
     
Draft saved Draft deleted