Good old Bush (oh and Libya are cowards)

Yes, a stunning speech by Bush. Apparently, the Libyans are a bunch of festering cowards who only agreed to co-operate because they are scared of the US. That's not going to incite any sort of terrorism is it????? But, no, American's don't give into threats...... but those libyans they're so differnet than you aren't they... man, they'd probably sell their own daughters than face you in battle.... :rolleyes:

Of course, we can safely ignore the facts that the re-integration of Libya into the Western world has been an ongoing process for the last ten years, including them putting up the Locherbie bombers for trial and paying compensation.. :rolleyes: If you guys vote for Bush, you're voting for terrorism..... he's the biggest recruiting agent they have...

Yeah Bush has lauded Libya for beginning to dismantle their weapons programs. That really sounds like he called them cowards.

:rolleyes:

Another glarring example of misquoting and spin?

Quote:

---

Bush said Libya's decision to scrap its nuclear ambitions and do away with its long-range missiles was the result of "quiet diplomacy" by the United States, Great Britain and the Libyan government. But it also was the result of outspoken public denunciations of nations that seek to threaten the world with nuclear and other weapons, he said.

---

Hmm, cowards? Sorry. Don't see it.

Got any links?

Quote:

---

The president said Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi got the message because America was so tough against Saddam.

"Because the Libyan government saw the seriousness of the civilized world and correctly judged its own interests, the American people are safer."

But at least one weapons expert said the issue is not that simple.

"I don't really agree that it was Iraq that pushed Moammar Gadhafi into making the decision to give up his WMD," said Rose Gottemoeller, who focuses on nuclear issues for the Carnegie Endowment, a private, nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing cooperation between nations. "This has been a long diplomatic process that has gone on over the last 5 or 6 years."

---

Mmmmm. Sounds like he's saying they backed down to me. If we put this in the context of your street. Say you have two neighbours and you are constantly fueding between the three of you.
You can be Gaddaffi, neighbour #1 can be Bush and neighbour #2 can be Saddam.

Lets also say, neighbour #1 and you are slowly patching up your differences. Neighbour#1 goes over to neighbour#2 and gives him a beating/kicking. Now neighbour #1 is down the pub bragging about how you've seen the light and you're only being freinds now because he (neighbour #1) beat the ***** out of neighbour #2.

Really, it's the same as calling someone a coward. No spin, nothing. If this happened to me, I know I'd take it that way. What about their families (that represent the populations of the respective countries). If Bush's family are down the pub bragging that your family cowtowed to them, don't you think some of them might get a little hot under the collar and seek to resolve the issue.

It's very simple human nature.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mendhak
Got any links?

---

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040712-5.html

Quote:

---

Libya is dismantling its weapons of mass destruction and long-range missile programs. This progress came about through quiet diplomacy between America, Britain and the Libyan government. This progress was set in motion, however, by policies declared in public to all the world. The United States, Great Britain, and many other nations are determined to expose the threats of terrorism and proliferation -- and to oppose those threats with all our power. (Applause.) We have sent this message in the strongest diplomatic terms, and we have acted where action was required.

Every potential adversary now knows that terrorism and proliferation carry serious consequences, and that the wise course is to abandon those pursuits. By choosing that course, the Libyan government is serving the interests of its own people and adding to the security of all nations.

---

Quote:

---

Three years ago, the nation of Libya, a longtime supporter of terror, was spending millions to acquire chemical and nuclear weapons. Today, thousands of Libya's chemical munitions have been destroyed. And nuclear processing equipment that could ultimately have threatened the lives of hundreds of thousands is stored away right here in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Today, because the Libyan government saw the seriousness of the civilized world, and correctly judged its own interests, the American people are safer. (Applause.)

---

Cander, Are you trying to tell me he's not refering to the invasion of Iraq.... That he is actually refering to the political pressures applied by the British and US governments after the Lockerbie bombings? If so, then isn't he really taking credit for all of Clintons good work in this area :p

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ex-FB
Unfortunately, if that was the case this would be a very simple war. What really happens is, vote for Bush, kill a pile of innocent people, create more terrorists.

---

So you are saying, that the war on terror cant be won regardless of who is president? You could be right but that is still no reason to cower in the face of terrorists.

Quote:

---

If bush was serious about combating terrorism, why doesn't he round up all the IRA fund raisers in Boston? No, I didn't think so.

---

Well i dont think the IRA poses a greater threat than Arab terrorists.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ex-FB
Yes, a stunning speech by Bush. Apparently, the Libyans are a bunch of festering cowards who only agreed to co-operate because they are scared of the US. That's not going to incite any sort of terrorism is it????? But, no, American's don't give into threats...... but those libyans they're so differnet than you aren't they... man, they'd probably sell their own daughters than face you in battle.... :rolleyes:

Of course, we can safely ignore the facts that the re-integration of Libya into the Western world has been an ongoing process for the last ten years, including them putting up the Locherbie bombers for trial and paying compensation.. :rolleyes: If you guys vote for Bush, you're voting for terrorism..... he's the biggest recruiting agent they have...

---

Gadhafi got scared when he saw Soddom in a hole in the ground, Vote for Bush = vote for terrorism, haha, u got some strange political views, Terrorists dont care who is president bro, they hate americans and everyone who is with us in general.
Basically you are saying that the American people should not vote for Bush , like that is going to stop terrorism :lol:
Vote for bush = kill a terrorist :bigyello:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CORONA BEER
Gadhafi got scared when he saw Soddom in a hole in the ground, Vote for Bush = vote for terrorism, haha, u got some strange political views, Terrorists dont care who is president bro, they hate americans and everyone who is with us in general.
Basically you are saying that the American people should not vote for Bush , like that is going to stop terrorism :lol:
Vote for bush = kill a terrorist :bigyello:

---

Unfortunately, if that was the case this would be a very simple war. What really happens is, vote for Bush, kill a pile of innocent people, create more terrorists. Even the US government has admitted that the world is now a more dangerous place because of the Iraq invasion. That was the best thing Osama Bin Laden could have had happen. Not only did you remove his sworn enemy, but you gave him the biggest recruiting drive ever!

If bush was serious about combating terrorism, why doesn't he round up all the IRA fund raisers in Boston? No, I didn't think so.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CORONA BEER
So you are saying, that the war on terror cant be won regardless of who is president? You could be right but that is still no reason to cower in the face of terrorists.

---

No, I think the war on terror can be won. But the battlefield is not that of a conventional war. It is about removing the fires that cause people to be recruited into terrorist organisations. You will never 100% rid the world of terrorsist, there will always be someone who uses it. But what we can do is render them impotent by removing their popular support. Especially with these guys supporting the suicide attack ideal, they'll kill themselves and hopefully there will be no-one to take their place.

We don't need troops on the ground, we need intelligence, intelligence and more intelligence. And then all we need is one bullet. The terrorists win great popular support as soon as we start killing innocent people. History has shown us this umpteen times.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CORONA BEER
Well i dont think the IRA poses a greater threat than Arab terrorists.

---

It does if you live in Northern Ireland. Look, it'd be a cheap and easy to round up the IRA fund raisers in Boston. The fact that no finger is lifted against them (despite repeated requests by the Irish and British governments) makes the Irish at least very synical about Bush's so called "war on terror". We have been fighting that war well before 9/11, and really it sounds just like a catch phrase now.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ex-FB
Unfortunately, if that was the case this would be a very simple war. What really happens is, vote for Bush, kill a pile of innocent people, create more terrorists. Even the US government has admitted that the world is now a more dangerous place because of the Iraq invasion. That was the best thing Osama Bin Laden could have had happen. Not only did you remove his sworn enemy, but you gave him the biggest recruiting drive ever!

If bush was serious about combating terrorism, why doesn't he round up all the IRA fund raisers in Boston? No, I didn't think so.

---

From what I have heard from the US government they continue to state the world is a safer place thanks to the war in Iraq. But I guess it depends on who you listen too it is an election year after all. As for what I personally think I believe the jury is still out on how effective the Iraq war has been on combating terrorism. This is due to the fact that Iraq has a shot at being a model for their Arab neighbors and could actually effect the region positively years down the road. This doesn’t mean that Iraq won’t deteriorate into anarchy and civil war and become more of a haven for terrorists but one can be hopeful that things will turn out for the best.

I hear people blaming Bush from an increase in terrorism all the way to the hole in the ozone layer. Why doesn’t Bush solve world hunger, after all the US has enough food to feed everyone. Why doesn’t Bush cure cancer, the US has the most recourses available to cure this disease and he’s not doing anything about it….it goes on and on. These are the people you cannot have a rational debate with because it all comes down to Bush = evil and anything he does is wrong, plus he’s a moron on top of it all, plus he was selected not elected…..blah blah blah.

You have a point in your opinion that more terrorists in the short run could be created because the war in Iraq. I do want to know however who in the US government stated this as a fact as from what I have heard the current position of the US government is that the war in Iraq has made the world a safer place. Your IRA point you lost me. Only because the same terrorists that bombed the world trade center on 9/11 are raising money here in the US and funding terrorism against the US. This is not because the US is pro-terrorism it is because in a free society things like this unfortunately happen, hell the US even trained the pilots that flew the planes into the towers. This administration is serious about stopping all terrorism, this includes the IRA.

X

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xanith
I do want to know however who in the US government stated this as a fact as from what I have heard the current position of the US government is that the war in Iraq has made the world a safer place.

---

Okay, I stand corrected on this point. I was referring to the CIA report saying there had been an increase in terrorism. I concede that this may be for other reasons than Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xanith
Your IRA point you lost me. Only because the same terrorists that bombed the world trade center on 9/11 are raising money here in the US and funding terrorism against the US. This is not because the US is pro-terrorism it is because in a free society things like this unfortunately happen, hell the US even trained the pilots that flew the planes into the towers. This administration is serious about stopping all terrorism, this includes the IRA.

X

---

I'm not saying the US is pro-terrorism (although some of it's citizens obviously are), what I am saying is that Bush's speechs about fighting terrorism sound pretty hollow by now. I'm not saying it's his responsibility to solve the worlds problems, but here we have a very specifically American problem. US citizens openly raised funds to pay for terrorists in another country. If these people were to be brought to justice, then maybe the Brits and Irish would be a touch less cynical about his "war on terror". But of course he won't move against them, they're voters after all. So his "war" is coming across as very much a war against just the anti-American terrorists. Fine, there's nothing wrong with that, but it makes him very hypocritical. He says he's against terrorism? All I ask is that he prove it. Arrest the sponsors of terrorism who are right beneath his nose and we might have a bit more respect for him.

One of the few good things to come out of 9/11 is that it opened the US citizens eye's as to what terrorism is like, and consequently stemmed the flood of money from Boston to the IRA, which in turn forced the IRA to the negotiating table as they saw their power slipping away. However, the fund raising still goes on, and people still die, and many more live in fear. This is not some freedom fight:- this is pure and simple violence, with school kids being beaten and kneecapped* because their parents are of the wrong faith, or burned to death because their parents have committed the unholy sin of marrying a different religion (the IRA frowns heavily on Catholics marrying Protestants). It's about bombs being set off in car parks where schoolchildren are gathered. It's about taxi drivers being executed because their company has transported British personel. It's about guys being executed infront of their family because they drink with someone of a different faith. It's pure and simple rule by fear. And apparently Bush won't do anything to stop it for fear of losing some votes.

*Kneecapping: They hold a lad down and shoot each of his kneecaps off (usually with a shotgun) so that he is confined to a wheelchair for the rest of his life.

I'll bet if the British would get out of Ireland there wouldn't be anymore terrorism there.

(Not a great arguement, but that really burns my ass - promised myself I wouldn't get into it on these boards though)

Broken promise to self #3255

Quote:

---

Originally posted by demotivater
I'll bet if the British would get out of Ireland there wouldn't be anymore terrorism there.

(Not a great arguement, but that really burns my ass - promised myself I wouldn't get into it on these boards though)

Broken promise to self #3255

---

Er, no. There'd be a blood bath. There's two sides of terrorism there, one fighting against "British Rule" (IRA) and the other fighting for it (UDF*). Both are as bad as each other. Also don't be fooled into believing this has anything to do with the greater good of the people. This is about protection money and drugs as much as anything else. The IRA are no relation to the IRA of the Republic.

The Republic has repeatedly stated as part of the peace process that they want both sides disbanded before they can be re-integrated into Ireland. I suspect the British government would want nothing more than to be able to hand it back, but I doubt Ireland would take it in the state it's in.

*The UDF = The Ulster Defence Force. Another terrorist group who's recruiting call is that if they don't keep the catholics suprressed, they'll take over the country and eat the protestants babies etc.

Good points. I was trying to get a jab in without getting into details, certainly don't mean to ignore all the facets of the situation (although that's just what I did). :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by demotivater
Good points. I was trying to get a jab in without getting into details, certainly don't mean to ignore all the facets of the situation (although that's just what I did). :eek:

---

Cool :) I agree that the British shouldn't be in there, but unfortunately I don't see anyway of getting them out either.... it's a tough call, and a problem which I suspect will not be solved for at least another generation... :(

Ok you guys have lost me in another one of those "so many words the meaning has faded" posts, where is the initial point @?
keep in mind i'm American and i have a very simplistic mindset :D

It's only been 900 years, what's another generation?

Definitely no easy answers (trust me I hear about it everytime we have a family event). Dinner, drinks and discussion about the British occupation of Ireland do not mix. :cry:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CORONA BEER
Ok you guys have lost me in another one of those "so many words the meaning has faded" posts, where is the initial point @?
keep in mind i'm American and i have a very simplistic mindset :D

---

Just nod and slowly walk away.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by demotivater
It's only been 900 years, what's another generation?

Definitely no easy answers (trust me I hear about it everytime we have a family event). Dinner, drinks and discussion about the British occupation of Ireland do not mix. :cry:

---

Yeah, it's a bit of a hot topic for many people. However, it is a part of Britain, and has been for over 200 years. (the Irish voted to join the UK with the act of union of 1800). Only the fanatics in NI call it an occupation. That'd be like saying you "occupying" Hawaii. Now having said that, it makes sense to reintegrate it back into the Republic, and I think most right minded people agree with that. But like I say, the hatred runs deep on both sides.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CORONA BEER
Ok you guys have lost me in another one of those "so many words the meaning has faded" posts, where is the initial point @?
keep in mind i'm American and i have a very simplistic mindset :D

---

:p Sorry, I tend to ramble. But I'm enjoying the various conversations.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ex-FB
:p Sorry, I tend to ramble. But I'm enjoying the various conversations.

---

its ok, i was actually thrown on this line,

Quote:

---

From what I have heard from the US government they continue to state the world is a safer place thanks to the war in Iraq. But I guess it depends on who you listen too it is an election year after all. As for what I personally think I believe the jury is still out on how effective the Iraq war has been on combating terrorism. This is due to the fact that Iraq has a shot at being a model for their Arab neighbors and could actually effect the region positively years down the road. This doesn’t mean that Iraq won’t deteriorate into anarchy and civil war and become more of a haven for terrorists but one can be hopeful that things will turn out for the best.

I hear people blaming Bush from an increase in terrorism all the way to the hole in the ozone layer. Why doesn’t Bush solve world hunger, after all the US has enough food to feed everyone. Why doesn’t Bush cure cancer, the US has the most recourses available to cure this disease and he’s not doing anything about it….it goes on and on. These are the people you cannot have a rational debate with because it all comes down to Bush = evil and anything he does is wrong, plus he’s a moron on top of it all, plus he was selected not elected…..blah blah blah.

You have a point in your opinion that more terrorists in the short run could be created because the war in Iraq. I do want to know however who in the US government stated this as a fact as from what I have heard the current position of the US government is that the war in Iraq has made the world a safer place. Your IRA point you lost me. Only because the same terrorists that bombed the world trade center on 9/11 are raising money here in the US and funding terrorism against the US. This is not because the US is pro-terrorism it is because in a free society things like this unfortunately happen, hell the US even trained the pilots that flew the planes into the towers. This administration is serious about stopping all terrorism, this includes the IRA.

---

cuz i couldnt tell if he was agreeing with you or disagree or both :p

I would prefer some quiet diplomacy from Bush, but he has never shown an ability to do that either within this country, or outside of it. I know of no action he has taken which has not further polarized this country, nor do I know of an action he has taken that has not served to polarize the world. Regardless of whether the war in Iraq was a good thing, the terrorists are stronger for it. Sure, we will kill a few in Iraq, but they clearly aren't flocking in there to be killed. Meanwhile, we appear to be slowly losing the war in Afghanistan. We now hold two cities, and have ceded the bulk of the country to either warlords with no real allegiance, or to the Taliban, who we tried to remove. I wish we'd kept focus on that country until that war was over and done with, but that was not what the vision for a new American Century was all about. That required Iraq.

Now we hope for peace in Iraq. It may happen, but it doesn't look very promising yet. That is not a homogenous country that will come together when given a chance. The three ethnic groups that dominate Iraq, don't like each other very much. Will they end up in civil war? We'll have to see. It doesn't have to go that way, but it certainly might.

As for Bush? Well, he's a divider, not a uniter. Plenty of people will follow that lead. They want a strong president who will strut about making statements like "Bring it on!" That seems strong to them. This country can withstand a few 9/11's, the death toll was only a few thousand, but that is not comforting to those who lost loved ones on that day. By failing in all of the stated objectives in Afghanistan, we proved to the fundamentalists that we are all talk. Yes, we pushed the Taliban out of power, but they didn't fall far, and we have stopped pushing. As for the people we stated that we were REALLY after, we didn't get any of them.

Bush told the Taliban to hand over Osama and we wouldn't bomb their country. They refused. We added Mullah Omar to the list, and went after them. Neither of the top two stated targets were captured, and further attacks have been carried out since then. To us, we appear to have done something. To them, however, we appear to be weak. I wouldn't expect them to be cowering in fear, but rather to be planning bolder moves.

This is where Bush failed. He talked tough, but showed weakness. The targets he destroyed were of no consequence to the terrorists. Osama didn't like Saddam either.

Interestingly, Bush is a fighter pilot. In Vietnam, there was a problem with the air force because they tended to destroy targets. They wanted to bomb buildings. Unfortunately, the buildings were inconsequential. Enemy combatants were often in the vegetation. It took the air force a long time to learn to attack the real target (which they couldn't see), rather than attack the structure (which housed no threat). Bush is doing the same thing here. He went after the structure of the Taliban, but failed to destroy the organization (or that which they protected). Then he switched to Iraq, which was an easy target to hit. He resembles the VietNam era pilots who went after the visible target, and failed to achieve their goal of destroying the enemy simply because the enemy wasn't connected with the visible target.

Honestly the US government is kind of funny, the president is the one people blame for the actual problems in the government system, i do not agree with the things that my government does, and other things i agree with.
Bush is a puppet for the government He dosent even write the stuff he reads. the president has nothing to do with how the country runs or works. also the us government system is kind of corrupt in some ways but not all the way. Bush is not to blame.
One thing funny about the US is that it dosent want to better unite mexico with us.

Another real worry is the house of Saud. King Fahd is really sick and it all depends on who'll follow him. Elections carry the risk that the wahabbi extremists (even worse in their devotion to Islam and Sharia than the Taliban) will take over.
If Prince Abdullah take over things might not change, if however Nayef takes over kiss your cheap oil goodbye because the man doesn't like the West at all.

Either way Osama wins again. Afghanistan is a mess, Iraq drains all the US soldiers from the Holy Land (Saudi Arabia with a weak government and little US protection right now), potential terrorists are flocking to his organisation etc ...
Sure he lost important people but for every 2 ringleaders he lost 10 others have volunteered to take over the mantle.

Somewhere in a cave the ******* must be laughing all day because you've played right in his hand from 11/9 on.

Didn't it all start with him?

Quote:

---

[i]Vote for bush = kill a terrorist :bigyello:[/B]

---

Nah more like:

Vote for bush = try to kill a terrorist but kill everyone else in the process. :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightwalker83

Vote for bush = try to kill a terrorist but kill everyone else in the process. :lol:

---

Diss on Bush = Get some origional opinions, and quit letting the media feed them to you ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CORONA BEER
Diss on Bush = Get some origional opinions, and quit letting the media feed them to you ;)

---

w3rd

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CORONA BEER
Diss on Bush = Get some origional opinions, and quit letting the media feed them to you ;)

---

:eek: