Author Topic: Bush's SotU Address  (Read 12314 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Knight Templar

  • Stealth
  • 212
  • I'm a magic man, I've got magic hands.
Bush wouldn't really need to draft, would he?

I don't think we'd lose enough to merit a draft really..
Copyright ©1976, 2003, KT Enterprises. All rights reserved

"I don't want to get laid right now. I want to get drunk."- Mars

Too Long, Didn't Read

 

Offline Solatar

  • 211
Quote
Originally posted by wEvil


I do think giving your corporations full reign, however, is.


I don't think it is, it is natural for one to want their country to prosper more than any other. I don't care who you are and what you say (not in this thread, I mean human population) you want your community to be the best.

 

Offline Stryke 9

  • Village Person
    Reset count: 4
  • 211
StratComm: I wasn't arguing that the atomic attacks were unwarranted. You won that one, you were right. But they were still civilian targets. I was using the example to demonstrate that, at times, attacks on civilians as a show of... whatever have been used successfully, and occasionally aren't all that bad. Hell, I was agreeing with you.

As for the nature of the WTC attack; I suppose it's up to interpretation. If the goal was merely to kil civilians, there certainly were more efficient ways to go about massacring more.
And however great the need is to remove Saddam from power, there is absolutely no reason Bush should be willing and eager to put several million lives at risk in order to do so. After all- he's the one who's so goddamn sure that Saddam is armed and ready to use his MDWs, and he knows as well as anyone that SCUDS could reach Jerusalem, that the Patriot antimissiles are best regarded as a Star Wars joke, and that Saddam would almost certainly do the obvious if he had absolutely nothing to lose, which he won't.

And your statement that we never carpet-bombed cities stands in conflict with the CNN news broadcast, which showed an entire village about the size of a small town near my house go up in flames after a particularly large bomb was dropped on it. Maybe they made it up, hmm? Photoshopped in?




And this is my 5,430th. :p
« Last Edit: January 29, 2003, 09:37:28 pm by 262 »

 

Offline Knight Templar

  • Stealth
  • 212
  • I'm a magic man, I've got magic hands.
Quote
Originally posted by StrykeIX

As for the nature of the WTC attack; I suppose it's up to interpretation. If the goal was merely to kil civilians, there certainly were more efficient ways to go about massacring more.
And however great the need is to remove Saddam from power, there is absolutely no reason Bush should be willing and eager to put several million lives at risk in order to do so. After all- he's the one who's so goddamn sure that Saddam is armed and ready to use his MDWs, and he knows as well as anyone that SCUDS could reach Jerusalem, that the Patriot antimissiles are best regarded as a Star Wars joke, and that Saddam would almost certainly do the obvious if he had absolutely nothing to lose, which he won't.

 


They sure work great in Red Alert 2 though.. wonder what's wrong with the israeli ones ;)
Copyright ©1976, 2003, KT Enterprises. All rights reserved

"I don't want to get laid right now. I want to get drunk."- Mars

Too Long, Didn't Read

 

Offline Stryke 9

  • Village Person
    Reset count: 4
  • 211

 

Offline Knight Templar

  • Stealth
  • 212
  • I'm a magic man, I've got magic hands.
Copyright ©1976, 2003, KT Enterprises. All rights reserved

"I don't want to get laid right now. I want to get drunk."- Mars

Too Long, Didn't Read

 

Offline CP5670

  • Dr. Evil
  • Global Moderator
  • 212
The 9/11 WTC attack was just another military operation as far as I am concerned; the civlians help the military survive and the military helps the civilians survive, so an attack on one is automatically an attack on the other. These distinctions don't really mean anything.

Quote
Not really, it aroused patriotism, national unity and with it Xenophobia and bloodlust. It trivialized internal political conflicts. As I said before, what is good for the national ideology (Perpetuated by the class to which the upper echelon of the government belongs (the very rich)), isn't at all in the interests of the rest of the people in that said nation. 9/11 blinded the huge majority of people to that fact.


Here we go again; I have already told you many times why we are completely dependent on this "upper echelon." That is just the way the current capitalist economy is set up; if they get rich, the rest of us do too (the middle classes, that is), and if they suffer, so do we. It is quite possible for them to get rich at our expense, but that doesn't happen in this case. It caused all those things plus what I said.

Quote
Generally just to make yourself appear smarter or better in some way. Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean anything at all, but all's fair in love, war, and stupid political debates on internet message boards.

You used too many periods. You're supposed to only use three.  


You had an extra comma in there! So you don't know anything and all your arguments are wrong! :D

Quote
Unfortunately I have to disagree with you there - Individuality is something I cherish very much in human nature, and the so-called "holy grail" is not a group mentality but rather a company of individuals who can work together. I beleive in the group as much as you do, although my methods are inherently more difficult to succeed with.


Alright, you are entitled to your opinion there, but if your goal is to take down everything then obviously you would support the alternative action of leaving Iraq alone. If we are arguing about anything we must at least start with the same assumptions/goals.

Actually, one thing I don't understand is why there is not something like a "quarkism" or "stringism" idea (in contrast to individualism), where the elementary units are the most important rather than the collective. :D

Quote
I'd devote my life to stopping the progress of such a monster.


You can do that if you like, but it will be a pretty fruitless waste of time. :p

Quote
I wasnt saying we were. I've certainly never resorted to terror tactics, although many of the things I see today make me wish I had. To use a cliche - there's only one weapon, which at the end of the day is compassion.


My point is that using "terror tactics" does not make a person/institution/whatever any "better" than another. For that matter, no action makes any person any better or worse than any other person. At the "end of the day," compassion, terror and whatever else are all really the same thing. (heck, if you think about it a little, compassion is a form of terror and terror is a form of compassion)

Quote
I wouldnt call todays suicide rate prospering. Its just a simple case of the privelaged few treading on heads to get where they are. In a world where science all but removes the need to place value on material possessions the continuing material/commercial culture is morally inexcusable. But then again morals are the least of your concerns (no, that wasn't a personal jab).


"Suicide rate?" Come on, there are much better arguments for your position than that. :p What I meant is that all of us here are definitely benefitting enormously from capitalism: computers, internet, HLP/gamespy, FS2, 3D programs and all the other things we use come from the corporations. As for "morally inexcusable," it is entirely a matter of opinion; I could say that sitting in chairs is "morally inexcusable," and it would be just as true as anything else. :D (actually, why not? I think I like this one... :D)

Quote
It would, but since saudi arabia are our "friends" it makes much more sense to attack iraq (which also happens to be bang next to Kuwait...) and since they already have an excuse. As I said before, i dont think military action will solve anything except publicity. What it will do is topple a remarkably anti-western dictatorship.


The same could have been said about Iraq before 9/11 though. Besides, the US is fairly good at propaganda; I don't think it would have much trouble making Saudi Arabia into a rogue state if it wanted to. :D And the last sentence there is exactly what wants solving by the US, so nothing more is needed from their perspective.

Quote
I wouldnt call that a bad thing - it's always struck me as rather hilarious that a nation dedicated to globilisation has proven so against it by having the largest free-standing army in the world and being so tight on immigration....but you can nitpick for hours.


Sure you wouldn't, just like many others (including European governments), but the US government would, and so it will act accordingly. And "being tight on immigration?" :wtf: Also, globalization can take many forms; if the US army somehow took over the entire world by force and brought everything together under one banner, that would certainly qualify, right? :D

Quote
My beef is and always has been the base structure of the way we live lives today, one cannot deny that it wrecks as many lives as it engenders - hows that for "progress". We're doing well but we're not doing well enough.


Sure, but that is simply the way the universe is; this in many ways parellels the natural selection theory, where the prosperity of one competing unit automatically implies the destruction of the others. While I kind of agree with the last sentence, in the absolute sense we are simply doing; we could do no better or worse.

bah, this politics is a bit boring; i'm going back to math for now...
« Last Edit: January 29, 2003, 09:59:14 pm by 296 »

 

Offline 01010

  • 26
Quote
Originally posted by Kamikaze
Yeah, too bad humanity has founded a deep rooted society of exchange and greed (no country will be able to meet ideals anytime soon). You can see it in the way kids embrace a capitalistic society in which you live as inescapable slaves (to money/companies). A dumb kid I was talking to said this in reply to my talk about virtual slavery, "so? it doesn't matter if we're slaves anyway." <--- great sign of brainwashing imo.



I have a new found sense of respect for you sir. That could not have been any closer to my opinion had you been living in my brain.
What frequency are you getting? Is it noise or sweet sweet music? - Refused - Liberation Frequency.

 

Offline 01010

  • 26
Quote
Originally posted by Kamikaze


Erm, he's talking about the US. And the point is that the US is too strict on it, which never instigates globalisation does it?

Anyway, the US' thought of globalisation is this:

US (corps and figureheads) at top of world organizing it all

-----

everybody underneath slaving away under US rule and oppression


Go New world order go.
What frequency are you getting? Is it noise or sweet sweet music? - Refused - Liberation Frequency.

 

Offline vyper

  • 210
  • The Sexy Scotsman
All of this is truly irrelevant.
The right and wrong of the "War On Terror" is truly spurious since such matters are not considered when the decisions reguarding this war are made. This is all about money.
Globalisation, as the buzz-word goes. Thats what this is about.
However, the misconception that state is being replaced by business is why current anti-globalisation activists get nowhere. Globalisation is simply the high speed, bloody erosion of human rights in the "developing" world and now more recently in our own.

I never understood what people were turning against when they berated the US, but I do now. They were trying to attach a state to a "terror" organisation. Like some people saw the Taliban (Afghanistan) as the al-Queda(sp?) home base, many people see the USA as the home base of Globalisation (and in some respect this is not unjustified, considering the weight they carry in terms of the WTO and IMF).

[q]You can do that if you like, but it will be a pretty fruitless waste of time. [/q]

Not entirely. Damnit I can't type anymore 'cos feking parents are in my room....
:mad:
"But you live, you learn.  Unless you die.  Then you're ****ed." - aldo14

 

Offline Corsair

  • Gull Wings Rule
  • 29
nuculer. nuculer. nuculer.


Repeat after me Georgey: NUCLEAR

:doubt: :sigh: :blah:
Wash: This landing's gonna get pretty interesting.
Mal: Define "interesting".
Wash: *shrug* "Oh God, oh God, we're all gonna die"?
Mal: This is the captain. We have a little problem with our entry sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and then... explode.

 

Offline Zeronet

  • Hanger Man
  • 29
Quote
Originally posted by Alikchi
I mean, look at Afghanistan. We bombed it and left it out to dry.

 


Yeah, lets look at Afganistan. Its getting aid from countries, the people arent under an oppressive goverment. US forces are helping defend it from the taliban, as shown as the recent engagement. The Americans really did fubar that country up didnt they, such evil evil people :rolleyes:
Got Ether?

 
Quote
Originally posted by Stealth


yes, but when the US goes to war (which it will) then ultimately most of us will be forced to... we'll be drafted... i know I will



Really?  Have you looked at our force deployment?  Only about half (that's right HALF) is deployed.  The Navy has the most deployed at around 4-5 battle groups moving to the area.  The Army is doing just fine.  Even Rumsfeld said we don't draftees.

Also it would take a long time to morph your ass into an effective soldier, so this war would have to drag on and on and on.

BTW we didn't institute the draft in the last gulf war.  At that time we went up against the 4th largest army and smashed it.  I doubt this time we need recruits if we didn't then.  And yes I know there has been force reductions, but not that much, and the force has increased ever since slick willy.
"I am about to drop the hammer and dispense some indiscriminant justice!" -Starcraft

"First rule of government spending, why build one for the price of one, when you can have two for twice the price." - S.R. Hadden (Contact)

 
Quote
Originally posted by Corsair
nuculer. nuculer. nuculer.


Repeat after me Georgey: NUCLEAR

:doubt: :sigh: :blah:


Potato can be said many ways.  Actually many in the military call it nuculer too.  It's just how you say things.  I mean the damn british need to learn how to say Vitamins and Schedule.
"I am about to drop the hammer and dispense some indiscriminant justice!" -Starcraft

"First rule of government spending, why build one for the price of one, when you can have two for twice the price." - S.R. Hadden (Contact)

 
"And your statement that we never carpet-bombed cities stands in conflict with the CNN news broadcast, which showed an entire village about the size of a small town near my house go up in flames after a particularly large bomb was dropped on it. Maybe they made it up, hmm? Photoshopped in?"

Clinton News Network eh?

As you said to me so many times, show me proof.  And that bomb is a daisy cutter.  And I'm doubting we did or else the media would have been up in arms.  Maybe they showed a test of it where the erected a small town... hmm the military doesn't do that.  And it's not like we don't have desert here.

One more thing, stop commenting on people's typing grammar.  Everyone knows it's ****.  I don't really care about mine, but just to let you know you need to follow the double comma rule.

Quote

Alright, you are entitled to your opinion there, but if your goal is to take down everything then obviously you would support the alternative action of leaving Iraq alone.


You need to do change that second comma to a semi colon... so all your arguments are wrong!  :D
"I am about to drop the hammer and dispense some indiscriminant justice!" -Starcraft

"First rule of government spending, why build one for the price of one, when you can have two for twice the price." - S.R. Hadden (Contact)

 

Offline CP5670

  • Dr. Evil
  • Global Moderator
  • 212
Actually the comma there is correct. :p Find some mistakes in the anti-war posts. :D

Quote
Not entirely. Damnit I can't type anymore 'cos feking parents are in my room....


eh? :wtf:
« Last Edit: January 30, 2003, 02:29:33 pm by 296 »

 

Offline Nico

  • Venom
    Parlez-vous Model Magician?
  • 212
Quote
Originally posted by Falcon X


Potato can be said many ways.  Actually many in the military call it nuculer too.  It's just how you say things.  I mean the damn british need to learn how to say Vitamins and Schedule.


I think the "damn british" made those words up, so I think they're entitled to decide how to pronounce them in the first place?
SCREW CANON!

 

Offline CP5670

  • Dr. Evil
  • Global Moderator
  • 212
I do agree that the "nucular" thing sounds silly, but this topic is about Bush's policies, not Bush's pronunciations, so it really has no relevance here.

 

Offline pyro-manic

  • Flambé
  • 210
AAARGH! What have I done?

I've unleashed the messy world of politics, where a once friendly and united group of people suddenly schism and re-schism into a horrible tangle of conflicting beliefs and ideologies that threatens to tear apart the very fabric of reality (or this thread:) ).

Cor.:eek:

Just like the real world, eh?

Anyway, I'm not going to carry this on, cos it's clear we're all strongly opinioned (is that a word? Should prob'ly be opinionated) about this, so I'll just say this:

*clears throat, takes deep breath and stands on chair*

PEACE, MAN!

'Nuff said.:cool: :) :yes:
Any fool can pull a trigger...

 

Offline CP5670

  • Dr. Evil
  • Global Moderator
  • 212
ah come on, arguing is fun! :D