Bush is set to speak to the US and World at 8:00pm EST on what he plans to do with Iraq.
Personally I think he did a great job tonight. He outlined what this war is all about and what our intensions are. We aren't out to conquor, we are out to liberate. Will will feed them and help their economy. They are one of the most richest countries in the world, but you'd never know it by going there. I just really believe we are doing the right thing. The world doesn't back us because in the past we haven't come though and weren't honest. This is the time to show we are serious. Anyone else watched it?
We never conquer, we never have despite what some would have you believe.
I, too, have the conviction that we are taking the best of two dark roads - the only road in fact that reveals a light at the end.
I missed it though which is a shame, I was dying to see the address but a previous engagement ran late (argh. So much ineffectual waffling!).
I think the real difference is that bush is calling for saddam and his sons to leave. If they do, they war is over, thats it. He doesn't say anything about his generals or guards because they are victims too. When people are given freedom good things happen. US soldiers in afganistan are treated like rock stars. When the Iraqi people feel freedom they will act the same way. However we all realize things could go very wrong and it won't be near perfect, but taking action is better than sitting around for the next act or terror.
I'm not buying it...everyone is jockeying for political advantage, oil money, and 'moral' superiority(Bush and his so-called Christian buddies)
I wasn't impressed.... while Iraq will very probably be far better off with Saddam gone, that's not Bush's reason for invasion, and he just repeated the specious claims that 1) Iraq is somehow a threat to us, and 2) Saddam supports al Qaeida.
Mainly I was annoyed by his repeated Nazi/Hitler references... if only Godwin's Law applied to the real world:
I think Bush spoke well, but he seemed semi "dronish" to me. He did make his case clear and I think in all it was an effective speach.
I wish that I could say that I saw an alternative to war here, but without the same hardline towards disarming by the French, Russians and Germans I don't see Saddam doing anything but manipulating the situation to his advantage.
I won't cry for the loss of his regime, and personally I don't give two ****s what bushes reasons for attacking or not are...I SUPPORT removal of Saddam and his dirty dozen because of his track record. When I read crap like this:
I have to agree with this question:
Why is it that the west accepts Arab killing Arab,when it would never accept such a situation for the Anglo Saxon world?
But then when I read about the state of Afghanistan:
[Removed Broken Link] I think that we must not have such a short attention span and start screaming that we put our money and our might where our mouths are and start insuring the improvements and the safety of and for the lives of all of the people we are supposedly rescuing. How many of you have forgotten to support the Afghanistan people in all of this Iraqi mess?
Saw the address, he has good speech writers, nice try to give them 48 hours, but really, does he actually think that they are going to go? No, it is to justify action. Well, I just hope that no dirty tricks will be dealt..
The Netherlands decided not to give military support.
This seems to be only the apparent reason for the war against Iraq.
First of all if Saddam is actually a bad guy (in whatever way you want), Bush (and US) don't have the right to take him off, the US is supposed to be a country, not the ruler of the world that decides who should be were.
And another thing, if Bush really wanted Saddam and his son, they could simply assasin them, there is no need to make a fuss about it and make a whole war and kill millions of innocent people for two guys !
And lastly, it seems US is changing the reason of the war each day (depending on the new changes), so at first US wanted to invade Iraq only for the mass destuction weapons, but now that they didn't find any mass destruction weapons, they are making the war saying they want Saddam out of there.
It is obvious that all they want is the to end a country that was once powerful, and the Iraqi Oil of course.
I read the transcript of the speech. It is filled with half-truths, misrepresentations, and religious speech bordering on teh illegal.
STAii...i think Bush is trying to *show* that the American Government (much different then the American People) is willing to give Saddam as much of a chance to leave peacefully as they can...assasinating a ruler of another country would not be conducive to Bush's reputation of being a *good* leader...sure it's probably possible that Saddam could be killed in an instant by our military, but i can imagine that there is a certain amount of image that goes along with this whole (planned) process...
I would bet a whole lot that if they could have, they would have. We've basically said as much:
Staii, I stand behind the first part of your message, US is supposed to be a country and not the leader of the world. Iraq has made NO threat against the US or the world when this whole thing started (or I must be having a board in front of my head). I agree that Saddam Hussein is probably closer to the devil than the saint, but there are international laws that should be followed.
I just heard this on the news tonight: the sport events are not going to be canceled [quote:] we are not going to let a tiran rule our lives. [!!!?] Since when has Hussein been ruling US lives and since when has Bush been dictating Iraqi's lives? Define the word Tiran here.. it is sad.
Bush has let himself be put into a corner, where there is no way out but forward..
I still cannot believe that someone can actually declare a war when a leader doesn't abandon its country.. how evil he might be, it doesn't seem logical or right.
I agree. In his address, Bush made some remarks to the effect "this is the 21st century and we're going to do things differently than we did in the last century." I must say, I don't like the start this century's getting off to.
Am I the only one besides Kat who read that "man-shredding" article?
Do we really have to dig up things from 15 years ago, in the middle of a war to scrabble for such things?
I guess we forget:
[Removed Broken Link]
I would like to see evidence that Saddam is a continued threat to his people, not details of offences from sources that are over 12 years out of date.
Maybe I missed something in the article, but what makes you think it's 12 years out of date?
[Removed Broken Link]
Because there was no date given to the actual incident, and the only date given (2 weeks ago) was for the reception of the account. Hence, the date of the incident may be at any time from 15 years ago to a month ago. There is no reason why this source should be withheld from the news if it was recent, so I would tend to believe that it was not.
Further, the article was placed in connection with:
Notice the lack of mention of any incidents after 1991, especially regarding the quote. UK government sources also had a bad record recently as it was revealed that a document detailing alleged current human rights offences was found to be over 12 years old.
A web search was found for independent confirmation of this incident, and similar ones. None was found. (at least so far. Could be searching wrong, I guess)
Also, there are obvious twistings of facts. Note:
Now, notice how (a) many of these organisations are anti-war. Amnesty Internation for example criticises not the Iraq action but the use of UN sanctions as the main cause of suffering. Iran was at war with Iraq, and commited human rights offences itself in the same war. Further, the final part ignores the fact that it was the US who strongly opposed a international human rights court, and that the current opposition were hardly the only ones against the war crimes tribune. (Amnesty having called on the UK government to support such a move in vain for 12 years)
No concrete evidence that this is out of date, I guess. But similarly no concrete evidence it is not. And given the chance of bias, this article is weak in terms of a rational argument.
All recent and all from Amnesty International. Their are other HR organizations reporting terror and torture if you feel this is not enough.
[Removed Broken Link]
"Victims of torture in Iraq are subjected to a wide range of forms of torture, including the gouging out of eyes, severe beatings and electric shocks," said Amnesty International, based on interviews with hundreds of torture victims in Iraq over the years. "Some victims have died as a result and many have been left with permanent physical and psychological damage."
A 25-year-old woman known as "Um Haydar" was beheaded in the street without charge or trial at the end of December 2000 after her husband, who was suspected by the authorities of involvement in Islamist armed activities, fled the country. Um Haydar was taken from her house in al-Karrada district, in front of her children and mother-in-law, by men belonging to Fedaiyye Saddam. Two men held her by the arms and a third pulled her head from behind and beheaded her in front of the residents. The beheading was also witnessed by members of the ruling Ba'ath Party in the area. The security men took the body and the head in a plastic bag and took away the children and mother-in-law. Their fate remains unknown.
[Removed Broken Link] In October 2000, dozens of women accused of prostitution were beheaded without any judicial process in Baghdad and other cities. Men suspected of procurement were also beheaded. The killings were reportedly carried out, in the presence of representatives of the Ba'ath Party and the Iraqi Women's General Union. Members of Feda'iyye Saddam, a militia created in 1994 by 'Uday Saddam Hussain, the eldest son of the President, used swords to execute the victims in front of their homes.
[Removed Broken Link]
I'll say this quietly, but I have a better source than you on this matter. Because I happen to be a member of Amnesty International. Our position is anti-Saddam, but also anti-war. You might notice a new campaign we have about the costs of war if you look around carefully enough. Basically our focus now is to get the US etc to renounce use of napalm, MOAB, cluster bombs and DU as being an unneccessary, unhumanitarian and internationally legally dubious method of warfare.
The sources you posted were actually very recent at all. (date 2001.) There was another one I believe calling on the UN to end sanctions?
Separate names with a comma.