The transcript of Bush’s speech isn’t online yet, but that’s what I sure thought I heard.
For instance, France has nukes (and pretzels ;)), and might someday use them against us. If we sit around and wait for them to attack us, that would be suicidal, so we must protect our safety by attacking them first.
That allows us free rein to attack pretty much anyone from Angola to New Zealand.
How can you attack their National Anthem, which doubles as their defence policy?
Sorry Kiwi’s, couldn’t resist. FWIW, I wish could copy your attitude to the world)
Presumably Bush has studied Llapgoch and is using it’s principles.
As someone around here once said, Iraq isn’t last, they are just next. As much as it sucks, I think Bush has a point. The WMDs are just too powerful to allow people who would are likely to use ever get a hold of em. The world has changed. There is stuff out there that could make 9/11 look like a minor hit.
Are we going about preventing this the best way possible? I have no idea. I know that doing nothing seems dangerous. I’m mostly just confused and really wishing that everyones life could be as much fun and as beautiful as mine has been. I look out at this beautiful city and I think of all the people I love who live here, and then I think of an explosion or a biological weapon ravaging this beautiful metropolis and I get shaken. How can we stop it? I really don’t know, but I hope we figure it out and cooler heads prevail.
DaLovin’ Dj
Ah, the transcript is now up.
Except for the fact that New Zealand is proudly nuke-free even under strong international pressure.
Plus, France harbors and trains terrorists. America knows how terrible it is to be attacked by terrorists. Hundreds of thousands of Americans could be killed by his weapons of mass destruction in the hands of those terrorists. America is a peace-loving nation. Therefore, Chirac and his mistresses have 48 hours to leave the country, or face destruction.
dalovindj, that’s part of the problem. Under this standard of safety and protection, how many nations do we have to attack in order to feel ‘safe’?
Think we can really contain the spread of bio and chem weapons? And again, to what lengths must we go to do so?
I’m quite skeptical of this. But that’s a digression for another day.
My neighbors have dogs. Those dogs have teeth and are capable of inflicting severe damage to my children. I have no problem with these dogs because they are friendly, well-trained, and restrained. I welcome them on my property when they come to visit.
Suppose it were different. Suppose one of these dogs was violently aggressive. Suppose they are not restrained and supervised. Suppose they have left their property and attacked and bitten the children of other neighbors.
Both of these dogs are potentially dangerous. After all, they both have teeth and the potential for violence.
Only one of these types of dogs represents a danger though.
Presented with a neighbor with the second kind of dog, I would work hard to urge my neighbor to take care of the problem and make his dog safe. I would make a pain in the neck of myself and I would involve the township, and the police if I did not recieve cooperation.
The answer would not be to restrain my daughter so that she could never play outside for fear of this dog, though I might have to do that for a time. The answer would not be to wait until that dog did grievous injury to my child.
Assuming that all else failed and the dog remained loose and dangerous despite my best efforts, I would have two reasonable choices left to me. I could sell my house and move away from the dangerous dog, or I could remove the dog.
Bush is choosing to remove the dog.
It is apparently legal for him to do so if what he said concerning the prior resoltions’ athority still being in force. It is simply not endorsed.
To stretch the metaphor, I am well within my rights to shoot a dog that wanders onto my property, though the action is not endorsed by the municipality.
I happen to believe that we should not invade because we went to the UN for a second resolution explicitly authorizing force and did not get it.
Nevertheless I am not confused about the doctrine that Bush is following. He is not against all nations that have the potential to do damage just as I am not against my neighbors owning nice civil dogs.
I am against vicious and dangerous dogs that cannot be restrained and made safe.
Ah, but they could develop nukes if they wanted! And then they could give them to Greenpeace, and we know about those eco-terrorists…we must protect ourselves now! Death to Kiwis!!! 
You have me convinced, minty. Let’s Roll.
Actually I don’t think he said Iraq could hurt the US. He said Iraq could develop nuclear weapons and could provide them to terrorist groups who could hurt the US someday. I didn’t hear any other reasons the Iraq is a threat to the US.
:rolleyes:
These hyperbolic rhetorical drama’s against the war does not help matters any.
I will let you debate this for me. What is the difference between Iraq and France conserning this issue? And not just concerning what you fantasize Bush schemes about in his coven.
conserning? That aint even a keys-too-close-together kinda excuse.
GWB juxtaposed these two gems himself.
We’re getting rid of Hussein to make things safer, but that’s gonna make things more dangerous.
Too bad I’ve only got a few bottles of Victory Gin left.
Bravo DaLovinDJ! I couldn’t have said it better myself. Thank you.
As someone around here once said, Iraq isn’t last, they are just next. As much as it sucks, I think Bush has a point. The WMDs are just too powerful to allow people who would are likely to use ever get a hold of em. The world has changed. There is stuff out there that could make 9/11 look like a minor hit.
Are we going about preventing this the best way possible? I have no idea. I know that doing nothing seems dangerous. I’m mostly just confused and really wishing that everyones life could be as much fun and as beautiful as mine has been. I look out at this beautiful city and I think of all the people I love who live here, and then I think of an explosion or a biological weapon ravaging this beautiful metropolis and I get shaken. How can we stop it? I really don’t know, but I hope we figure it out and cooler heads prevail.
DaLovin’ Dj
You lost me on your analogy, Scylla.
Suppose the neighbors had a dog that, albeit vicious and dangerous, hadn’t left the neighbors’ property except when you had let him out, and even that had been many years ago.
However, it had been verified that the dog still had sharp teeth and still could be quite dangerous if he did get off the property and attack someone.
What moral standing have you now?
Perhaps my views are a little too tainted by the radical-left-wing-politics-I-hate-Bush set… but I don’t think I’m alone when I say the current administration is using this ambiguous fear of WMDs in a deplorable manner to facilitate an invasion.
Is the threat all that great? Was September 11th our call to action? Are we not doing enough?
My answer is… kind of.
The party line seems to be that the consequences of inaction are too great. Iraq, they say, could conceivably route nukes/biochem weapons around to terrorists, who would, in turn, use them against American citizens.
And yet, from here, Bush’s insistence on military action seems to be doing more to divide nations, destabilize international relations, and generally worsen American reputation than anything else. Doesn’t this diplomatic snafu represent a greater threat to us than some crackpot dictator who’s been largely harmless with regard to the United States in recent years?
The fact is, I don’t think our nation’s been a good global citizen of late, and this is just the latest event in a long line of Things We’ve Done To Piss People Off. Our insistence to stay out of the Kyoto and Hague accords is just… childish it seems. Sure, there’s something to be said for being independent of world opinion, but diplomacy’s the way stuff gets done! It’s been said before: where will we stop? Can we be safe enough? Iraq, North Korea, Iran… our list of enemies is a mile long. Shouldn’t we do something on that side of the equation? The whole issue reminds me of the Hydra–cut off one head and another grows in its place immediately. I truly believe that only intelligence and diplomatic skill will prevail in dealing with this situation.
And Bush doesn’t have it.
(Couldn’t resist.)
What about pakistan, the country that actually did harbor, give succor to and train Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaida et al?
Pakistan already has nucyuler weapons. The last major AQ arrest was at the house of a political muckety-muck in an excusive neighborhood that is home to generals and such.
My translation:
"We don’t like aggression. Aggression is bad. Countries that are aggressive are bad. Aggressive countries are things we don’t like because of their aggression. Aggression is something we will not abide from aggressive countries. Because, as I said, we don’t like aggression.
That is why we are going to invade your country, despite the UN asking us not to."