State Of The Union

[aminorthreat55]

Thoughts?

Remember President Bush, the ends don't justify the means.

I like how Cheney smirked about anything that was clearly bullshit, like No Child Left Behind, Clean Air Act, etc.

If you were in the US Senate, you'd know that putting blue ink on your index finger is the new black.

"Oh crap! He said freedom! Gotta stand up and clap!" - a Republican


I stopped paying attention because some asshat near me is blasting his bass and horrible music. I can't focus.

[open mind]

no real suprises from what i saw (didn't watch it all), didn't really hear all that much about the auctual state of the union though.

[fourletterword]

"Oh crap! He said freedom! Gotta stand up and clap!" - a Republican




I realize they want to support their guy and everything and it happens everytime no matter who is in office, but can't they just hold it off until the end so the State of the Union doesn't have to take so damn long.

Oh Bush, please just don't start another war and destroy our domestic future.

[Poopy]

Thoughts?

Remember President Bush, the ends don't justify the means.

I like how Cheney smirked about anything that was clearly bullshit, like No Child Left Behind, Clean Air Act, etc.

If you were in the US Senate, you'd know that putting blue ink on your index finger is the new black.

"Oh crap! He said freedom! Gotta stand up and clap!" - a Republican


I stopped paying attention because some asshat near me is blasting his bass and horrible music. I can't focus.

"Oh crap! That idiots talking again, better sit on my hands even if some of his policies make sense to me" - A democrat

[Love As Arson]

He proved he had no viable exit strategy for Iraq.

[cal1082]

i didnt get a chance to watch it

[evolpics]

Sounds like he's going to start two more wars. Yippie....

I also hate his no child left behind act. My schools dumbass freshman and sophomores dragged us in to an 8 period block sched for next year. Its not even fing block. Its 4 periods a semmester but admin didn't want people not to graduate since they have to take hella test prep classes... Stupid.

[Poopy]

He proved he had no viable exit strategy for Iraq.

Have you ever considerred the fact that maybe he does not wish to share it with nation and the world because it would give a strategic advantage to our enemies?

[cal1082]

Sounds like he's going to start two more wars. Yippie....

I also hate his no child left behind act. My schools dumbass freshman and sophomores dragged us in to an 8 period block sched for next year. Its not even fing block. Its 4 periods a semmester but admin didn't want people not to graduate since they have to take hella test prep classes... Stupid.

what does that have to do with no child left behind?

[open mind]

it's sad that your so blinded by "the man" that you have to ask........... :wink3:

[richter915]

i didnt get a chance to watch it
same here.

me and you are on the same page for once. this page has pics of naked men though...oh well.

[Avraamii]

Sounds like he's going to start two more wars. Yippie....



you are retarded, find out some facts, then tell me who put this war into motion way before GW was even president.

[Love As Arson]

Have you ever considerred the fact that maybe he does not wish to share it with nation and the world because it would give a strategic advantage to our enemies?
So, you're content with the idea of an occupation that may never end?

[VinnyVegas]

I find it interesting that the whitehouse.gov site doesn't offer the "whole" transcript of the address. If you go to http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2002/index.html# (the official page), and click "View The Transcript", you get an edited transcript. However, if you go to http://www.c-span.org/executive/transcript.asp?cat=current_event&code=bush_admin&year=2005 the entire transcript is availible. Many key points/issues are left out of the whitehouse.gov version. Maybe I'm just missing the link, but if I'm not, this is unacceptable.

Also, it's totally out of line for the president to be talking about the value of human life (stem cell research) when he is sending thousands of people into harms way. If he really cared about human life he would not have gone into Iraq.

[kchubb]

Also, it's totally out of line for the president to be talking about the value of human life (stem cell research) when he is sending thousands of people into harms way. If he really cared about human life he would not have gone into Iraq.

Disregard the 25 million people that have been liberated...

[Poopy]

Disregard the 25 million people that have been liberated...

Or maybe the 300 million in the US and the other 6 billion in the world that are safer.

[Poopy]

So, you're content with the idea of an occupation that may never end?

No I can just understand the strategy in not setting a firm day to leave Iraq. If you set that date, terrorist will just say "Ok I'll just wait until then to try to take back the country" Its not in Bush's or the Us's best interest to occupy Iraq at the levels we are for very long. The administration knows that but they have to be smart and somewhat secretive about their plans for leaving in order to keep the country free.

[Love As Arson]

You're presupposing that by the time we leave terrorism will be gone. It won't be, so there will always be an element trying to take the country back. Let us leave the Iraqi's to deal with their own terrorists. It is time for us to leave.

[kchubb]

You're presupposing that by the time we leave terrorism will be gone. It won't be, so there will always be an element trying to take the country back. Let us leave the Iraqi's to deal with their own terrorists. It is time for us to leave.

We have invested billions in iraq as well as countless lives, time, energy, and resources. And you think we should leave Iraq in its fragile first stages of having a completely new govenmental system? We have done great things and come a long way with their military and police force, but if you think they are ready to fend for themselves you are sadly mistaken. If we leave now we forfit all good that has come from the situation...

[Love As Arson]

We have invested billions in iraq as well as countless lives, time, energy, and resources. And you think we should leave Iraq in its fragile first stages of having a completely new govenmental system? We have done great things and come a long way with their military and police force, but if you think they are ready to fend for themselves you are sadly mistaken. If we leave now we forfit all good that has come from the situation...
We invested more than we should have. We have liberated them and they have had elections. It is time for them to take responsibility for their country.

[yeknom]

We invested more than we should have. We have liberated them and they have had elections. It is time for them to take responsibility for their country.

No.

[scitsofreaky]

I am not for the war, but we started the mess so we shouldn't leave before the Iraqis have a better handle on things. A president can be a big step, and I hope that it will be, towards Iraq being independant, that is, not dependant on America's military. But it will take time, and sadly even more lives. But, if we leave before we should, it could all be for naught, and all of those people would have died for nothing.

Holy crap, why do politicians have the idea that the no child left behind program is working? Sure test rates are going up, but that is only because students are being kicked out and entire schools are losing thier public school status because they don't meet the standards and get the money that would help them taken away. This program defies common sense, why would you take away funding from those who need it and give it to those who don't? Kids are truly just fucked in this program; the only winners are the schools that were already doing well. I have no problem with having educational standards, but you can't punish children for the school not being able to teach them properly.

[bopst]

I think it should be called, "The State of the lies"...

[UndefinedBoy]

No.

Convincing argument you have there.

[VinnyVegas]

Disregard the 25 million people that have been liberated...

The term liberate means: To set free, as from oppression, confinement, or foreign control. Iraq does not fit any of those criteria and they probably never will. If we had pursued more aggressive diplomatic sanctions against the country many thousands of people would have been saved.

Or maybe the 300 million in the US and the other 6 billion in the world that are safer.

I fail to see how attacking a relatively defenseless country has made the United States any safer. It simply gave people in the region a concrete reason to hate the United States.

[yeknom]

Convincing argument you have there.

sorry, I just had little time and wanted to express my opinion.

[Love As Arson]

I am not for the war, but we started the mess so we shouldn't leave before the Iraqis have a better handle on things. A president can be a big step, and I hope that it will be, towards Iraq being independant, that is, not dependant on America's military. But it will take time, and sadly even more lives. But, if we leave before we should, it could all be for naught, and all of those people would have died for nothing.
The majority of Iraqi's want us gone, so let us leave.

[scitsofreaky]

Of course they want us gone, and I am with them in wanting. But realistically the US leaving will probably make the insurgency worse because of a drop in security. We should leave when the Iraqis are more capable of protecting themselves, so we should focus on training Iraqi police and military, which is pretty much the same thing for now. We should stop trying to find Zarqawi (speeling is way off, but you who I mean) because I doubt we ever will.

[Love As Arson]

Of course they want us gone, and I am with them in wanting. But realistically the US leaving will probably make the insurgency worse because of a drop in security. We should leave when the Iraqis are more capable of protecting themselves, so we should focus on training Iraqi police and military, which is pretty much the same thing for now. We should stop trying to find Zarqawi (speeling is way off, but you who I mean) because I doubt we ever will.
They seem to believe they can run the country better with us gone, so let them run it.

[cal1082]

They seem to believe they can run the country better with us gone, so let them run it.

Explain that one to us......? How does it seem that they believe they can run the country better with us gone? From all accounts I read I've seen the Iraqi stance has been maybe in 18 months or so would they be ready to secure it for themselves.

[richter915]

Of course they want us gone, and I am with them in wanting. But realistically the US leaving will probably make the insurgency worse because of a drop in security. We should leave when the Iraqis are more capable of protecting themselves, so we should focus on training Iraqi police and military, which is pretty much the same thing for now. We should stop trying to find Zarqawi (speeling is way off, but you who I mean) because I doubt we ever will.
But don't you see the hypocricy in that? You (not you specifically but people) can always shout out numbers and percents of Iraqi approval but the fact that there is an insurgency attacking civilians in Iraq is because of US invasion...I agree we shouldn't be looking for Zarqawi because bin-Laden is the one from al-qaeda who led the attack on US soil...why haven't we found him yet?

[cal1082]

But don't you see the hypocricy in that? You (not you specifically but people) can always shout out numbers and percents of Iraqi approval but the fact that there is an insurgency attacking civilians in Iraq is because of US invasion...I agree we shouldn't be looking for Zarqawi because bin-Laden is the one from al-qaeda who led the attack on US soil...why haven't we found him yet?

I see your point but in the same sense I dont understand the logic behind it. I'll explain......

You say the fact that we are there is the reason the insurgency is attackign civilians in Iraq (and I agree to a certain extent). That extent being that if the common Iraqi citizen was against the US and wanted us out than you would not see the insurgency attacking civilians, rather you would see civilians and the insurgency working together. So it's not so much a point they are attacking civilians because we are there.........it's the fact that the civilians are supporting the steps towards democracy and what the coalition is doing.

[Love As Arson]

Explain that one to us......? How does it seem that they believe they can run the country better with us gone? From all accounts I read I've seen the Iraqi stance has been maybe in 18 months or so would they be ready to secure it for themselves.
Refer to the point I made about the majority of Iraqi's wanting our forces out of their country.

[scitsofreaky]

But don't you see the hypocricy in that? You (not you specifically but people) can always shout out numbers and percents of Iraqi approval but the fact that there is an insurgency attacking civilians in Iraq is because of US invasion...I agree we shouldn't be looking for Zarqawi because bin-Laden is the one from al-qaeda who led the attack on US soil...why haven't we found him yet?
First, I doubt we will ever find bin Ladin, he is hiding amoung his own and he can travel freely between Pakistan and Afganistan.
The insurgency is not against the US, it is against the Iraqi people that aren't going along with the radical fundies. Most people there want freedom and democracy, but the insurgents don't, they want an islamic terrorist state. If the insurgents were against the US, more troops would be dying, but instead you have a few US troops dying in an attack, while 20-30 Iraqis are dying.
They will be able to run their country better after we leave because they will be in charge of their own security, but right now they can't run thier security alone, and if anyone thinks otherwise I believe them to be badly mistaken.

[richter915]

First, I doubt we will ever find bin Ladin, he is hiding amoung his own and he can travel freely between Pakistan and Afganistan.
The insurgency is not against the US, it is against the Iraqi people that aren't going along with the radical fundies. Most people there want freedom and democracy, but the insurgents don't, they want an islamic terrorist state. If the insurgents were against the US, more troops would be dying, but instead you have a few US troops dying in an attack, while 20-30 Iraqis are dying.
They will be able to run their country better after we leave because they will be in charge of their own security, but right now they can't run thier security alone, and if anyone thinks otherwise I believe them to be badly mistaken.
we also won't find him since our main focus has shifted from finding/breaking down al qaeda to liberating Iraq. The insurgency is very much against the US and all of the people who support what the US is doing...The fact that these insurgents are even capable of taking down a few american soldiers is proof...and what I'm saying is that you wouldn't have any of these casualties had the us not invaded, these Iraqi civilians would be safe from terrorist regimes. It's not just Iraq either...this same sort of thing is starting to happen in Saudi Arabia which has been under terrorist attack for a long time (and they're one of the US's better "friends" in the middle east so it's really not a shock)

[scitsofreaky]

Of course they wouldn't be under attack from insurgents if we hadn't attacked. Liberty is not free, or even cheap but it seems like the majority of Iraqis think that the price is worth it. Also, there were many that already lived in fear of Saddam, so that aspect of their life hasn't really changed too much, which is sad, but at least now they have more liberty. America represtents a liberty that the insurgents don't want, but the majority does, so their enemy is the US and the majority of the population.
As for al qaeda, since we attack Afganistan, has changed how it is organized. Bin Ladin should be caught and put on trial for planning the attacks, but his capture wont change anything in al qaeda, if anything, it may just harden them against us even more (if that is even possible).

[open mind]

they have more liberty now?

[scitsofreaky]

They don't?

[Justin_stacy]

they have more liberty now?

They had liberties under Saddum?

[richter915]

They had liberties under Saddum?
this is what we call a catch XXII...screwed one way or another.

[scitsofreaky]

The difference is that now they can fight their enemy.

[open mind]

they couldn't before?
(don't answer another question with a question please)

[richter915]

The difference is that now they can fight their enemy.
you're saying the Insurgents there are part of the bath party?

[scitsofreaky]

Realistically, no, they couldn't. Anyone that was a threat to Saddam was "taken care of" by either being imprisoned or intimidation, ie he would have your family imprisoned or killed. The threat that the insurgents impose is less personal, and they have some protection from the US military.