Bush's Address To The Un General Assembly

[tec21]

The United States has taken a strong stand on weapons of mass destruction. United States President George W. Bush wants no more weapons of mass destruction, and after a moment of delay he explains, to be held by the evil powers in the world. As a Canadian, viewing this from a Canadian perspective I would not, by any means, be inclined to call the United States, or President Bush, a Good Power. Also, I don't doubt that the United States is harbour to the majority of the world's weapons of mass destruction. It seems the U.S. is striving to be the ultimate world dominance, and now the country is conniving by guilting other countries into supporting its actions. When I say guilting I am referring to the recent request of the United States for all other countries to supply resources in the rebuilding of Iraq. The U.S. will take care of the strength factor, but the clean-up must be taken care of by the rest of the world. Behind the big stage of Iraq, in which the spotlight is on, the U.S. is twisting the arms, and trying to coerce countries which are not following the rules (or guidelines, to put it more politely) the U.S. has created. Canada did not participate in the War on Iraq; consequently, the Canada has had problems with U.S. trade; for example, beef and softwood lumber.

Tec21

[Bushmustgo]

It sure does seem that way.

[nova_satori]

Also, I don't doubt that the United States is harbour to the majority of the world's weapons of mass destruction.

I disagree. Russia may have a few hundred more.

if Bush is so aganist WMD, why did he call for new tactical WMD?

[Simmerinn]

ah sheesh, you guys. Please don't think for a second that GW Bush speaks for all americans. What many of us see, like you, is a man desperate to point fingers. A man sweating as the weight of the world falls on his shoulders. He's just trying to divert attention away from his mistakes, but over all, no matter his motivations, i believe the world is a better place for it. Iraq was screwed, bush didn't have the right intentions when he dragged us into that "war" but the end result is still as sweet. I believe it's wrong for countries to take a blind eye to the situation in iraq because they don't want to "side" with the states. Screw that. In the end there's millions of people suffering, but who also have a chance at a new beginning. Try looking them in the face and say "I'd like to help you out, but the United States is an evil country and you belong to them now"

Christ it's not like we made the mess, believe it or not iraq wasn't the nicest place in the world before we got there, but atleast there's opportunity to improve now. Iraq is not the perverbial poop left behind by the bean loving pit bull tha tis the united states. They're people who need a hand. Get over yourselves and help out.

[Bushmustgo]

Does anyone realize that the $89 billion asked by Bush to Congress for the Iraqi mistake ASSUMES $50+ Billion that will be granted by the U.N.......

Well, after watching Bush's speech yesterday, it didn't look like he had convinced anyone to contribute Billions of dollars or large troop numbers, etc......

What a sorry ass speech, it was more aimed at his home political issues since he has been dropping in Approval Ratings.....

Why in the hell would anyone want to contribute to help this jerk who didn't even TRY to convince anyone otherwise.

[SirRiff]

that speech was pathetic. it was like a kid reciting a book report on a book he never read (an analogy that fits Bush good).

if Cowboy bush didnt do such a bad job of making the case in the first place maybe we would have some sympathy. but from the country that has had its hands in seveal secret wars, i am not too concerned about thier lecturing to anybody. add to that the entire WMD song and dance along with all the "intelligence" propaganda, and the US under militant bush cannot be trusted to act morally and ethically.

unfortunatly, this botched operation will set back future legitimate humanitarian causes.

SirRiff

[Nuclear]

Also, I don't doubt that the United States is harbour to the majority of the world's weapons of mass destruction.

I disagree. Russia may have a few hundred more.

if Bush is so aganist WMD, why did he call for new tactical WMD?

Deterrent. It's what prevented WW3 from being fought between the Soviet Union and the USSR....mankind would have obliterated itself. If the US, of all nations, has the ultimate power in the world, we have a better chance of being a peaceful planet....

[Mr Farrius]

I agree that the speech was pitiful. It almost seemed as if Bush was rambling on and didn't have a purpose at all. Of course, some Republodumbs have hailed the speech, refusing to look at many many points Bush failed to address. Iraq is doomed to fail.

[Mr Farrius]

Notice the usual right-wingers not saying much about the idiocy of Bush's speech.

[nova_satori]

Deterrent. It's what prevented WW3 from being fought between the Soviet Union and the USSR....mankind would have obliterated itself. If the US, of all nations, has the ultimate power in the world, we have a better chance of being a peaceful planet....

Deterrents don't work aganist someone with nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Fought between the Soviet Union and the USSR.....they were going to have a tactical nuclear civil war?

History has shown, once a great power arises, the smaller powers band together to bring the stronger one down. It will happen. Making yourself appear arrogant will only hasten your fall.

Notice the usual right-wingers not saying much about the idiocy of Bush's speech.

The right wingers believe that tehy can do no wrong. The liberals however, do critize other leftist for bad judgments.

[Nuclear]

This right winger isn't saying much because I have things to do in a day and didn't get to watch the speach so I can't comment on it.

What I can say is that I think the way to get the UN involved is to pull out of IRaq and leave it a mess. The UN will go in hoping to get oil and the French and Germans will want their contracts back.(the reason they opposed military action in the first place) Screw Iraq. There is nothing there worth taking, so now that we've eliminated the threat, leave. Let the UN worry about it. It's what they do...sometimes.

Also: Noticed part of the debate last night with the democrats and I couldn't get over how General Clark's voice sounds almost the exact same as Bush's! Their voices just have a very similar sound that was really weird.

[Black Dog]

What I can say is that I think the way to get the UN involved is to pull out of IRaq and leave it a mess. The UN will go in hoping to get oil and the French and Germans will want their contracts back.(the reason they opposed military action in the first place)... Let the UN worry about it. It's what they do...sometimes.

So every time the U.S. shits on the rug, the UN has to clean it up? You must be an American.

Screw Iraq. There is nothing there worth taking, so now that we've eliminated the threat, leave

Bwahhahah. It's called "oil", son. It's what makes the U.S. (and the Bush administration) tick.

Also: Noticed part of the debate last night with the democrats and I couldn't get over how General Clark's voice sounds almost the exact same as Bush's! Their voices just have a very similar sound that was really weird.

I would hope General Clark would at least know how to pronounce "nuclear" correctly, unlike a certain presidential bumbler.

[Hugo]

So every time the U.S. shits on the rug, the UN has to clean it up?

I think it would be more accurate to say that the UN would grind the shit into the rug, place a coffee table over the spot, spray some air freshener around, and declare it clean.

[nova_satori]

I think it would be more accurate to say that the UN would grind the shit into the rug, place a coffee table over the spot, spray some air freshener around, and declare it clean.

That's the funniest thing i've heard all week. How true.

What I can say is that I think the way to get the UN involved is to pull out of IRaq and leave it a mess. The UN will go in hoping to get oil and the French and Germans will want their contracts back.(the reason they opposed military action in the first place) Screw Iraq. There is nothing there worth taking, so now that we've eliminated the threat, leave. Let the UN worry about it. It's what they do...sometimes.

Nuclear is a TRUE american. Not only does the US look out for her best interest, but when other countries look out for their best interest, and when those interests conflict, the average American condemns the other nations for not looking out for the US's best interest. you love to disagree with your governmnet, but no one else can?

How can you be angry with another country for looking out for its best interest when your own country does the same? Since when did the world become "America's Bitch?"

[Hugo]

Since when did the world become "America's Bitch?"

Since 1945. Not a moral judgement, just a fact.

[nova_satori]

that's a rather arrogant claim. it has been argued that the USSR could have won the war on its own.

[Hugo]

Yes, and it's been argued (recently) that the Earth is flat. That doesn't make it so. Do you have any reasoning behind this, or is this going to become another "US Carriers: beating some sense into Nova Satori" thread?

[Nuclear]

Since when did the world become "America's Bitch?"

Since 1945. Not a moral judgement, just a fact.

That's hilarious...

The US does a lot for the world. We have a history of doing a lot. Most of Europe would be speaking German if it were not for us. Most of China would be occupied by Japan. The what ifs are endless...but the US did it's part and worked the hardest.

Hugo, whom if I am correct, is from Great Britian, and his country a trusted ally of the US. If everyone became a trusted ally of the US, everyone would be friends and the world would be peaceful.

"Why can't we all just....get along?" - President 'Jack Nicholason' in Mars Attacks right before he gets impaled by the alien gizmo.

[Craig Read]

The USSR was sustained by the US and Britain - supplies were vital for Stalin - tanks, vehicles, arms, food and oil. Without that Stalin would have had severe trouble. I will grant that Stalingrad and Kursk signalled the end of the Reich, but it was an Allied not a Russian only victory. What is important is what Nuclear stated - that Canada, the US and Britain share common values and institutions that must be defended. War is the necessary preoccupation of man.

[Bushmustgo]

, but it was an Allied not a Russian only victory.

In the eyes of the Germans, it was Russia who applied the most pressure in ending the war, for whatever that's worth.

Craig mentions a word not know to his current administration in a successful victory, the word, "allied."

Can't go at it alone or name Bulgaria, Armenia, Antartica as part of our huge coalition in Iraq, where we pay for the transportaion and all costs associated with those countries sending some 40-400 troops..... In other words, we're paying them our tax dollars just so that we can use a number when commenting on a "coalition!"

Nuclear,

My boss is English and we have another guy who is German and was born in Germany during WWII.

Jokes are made here that my English boss would be talking German if it weren't for the Americans but, he thinks that it was mainly England who defeated Germany and that's his story. In other words, each country will teach IT'S HISTORY to IT'S people differently cause IT is from their perspective. The German guy here at work doesn't credit the Americans or English for the end of Nazi Germany, he says that Germans KNOW the RUSSIANS had the most to do with it and also feel the Russians would have easily finished the Nazis off alone..........for whatever that's worth, and that's how history is taught in Germany sighting the Russians as the great "Defeaters!"

[Hugo]

This was not what I meant. I'll address the mistaken point first:

The UK and USSR were dependent upon supplies of American war materiel, not the other way round. It's highly doubtful that the USSR could have won without American help. It's virtually impossible that Britain could have won.

Now to the actual point:

I've heard it argued by a historian and grand strategist that the USA would have achieved world supremacy by 1951. WWII just accelerated that by 6 years. In 1945, Europe lies in ruins, Britain is bankrupt and broken after fighting a war far beyond her means, and the USSR has vast armies but little else as most of her economic indicators are lower than they've been since the Tsars.

America, however, is at an unprecedented industrial and economic high, the world's largest creditor nation, owner of the most powerful military and the atomic bomb. This has set the stage for the world order thereafter. While the post-war world was bipolar, it's no secret that the USSR was playing second fiddle to the US in every respect, by a long way.

That is what I meant. You want to know when the world became America's bitch? 1945. Simple as that.

[daniel]

Probably a bad choice of words but unfortunately I would have to agree.

It's like a being in a bad relationship where one domineering partner abuses the other. Well, maybe not in 1945 or '46, but eventually American super power got the better of itself and now we see that spinning out of control with a vigilante President too drunk on power.

OK, I'm getting ahead of myself again, but back to the relationship analogy, it's extremely difficult to get out of it because it threatens the power and control of the dominate partner.

There are no battered-women's shelters for countries too dependant on US Aid. So they are forced to join the coalition against Iraq or "suffer the consequences".

[Craig Read]

Say what ? How many nations depend on US foreign aid to survive ?- let me count a few of them; Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, South Korea, Burma, sundry states in Latin America and so on.

What do they receive for this largesse of trying to send money and aid regimes that deem are friendly to their own interests [as if Canada does or would do anything different] - a hostile media, student demonstrations and Canadian hostility [ok so the last one is unimportant].

As well the UNO exists solely due to US backing. It was Roosevelt after all, in spite of Churchill's reservations, that forced through the UN concept which was a design in his brain, during the Atlantic Charter draft, if not before.

I guess you are just a good old fashioned racist with penis envy.

[SirRiff]

Say what ? How many nations depend on US foreign aid to survive ?- let me count a few of them; Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, South Korea, Burma, sundry states in Latin America and so on.

uh, look at that on the flipside...

supporting isreal, intimidating the middle east...good for US

supporting corrupt saudi royal family to keep oil flowing...good for US

sending aid to pakistan to fight against osama...good for US

helping nato nations to counter russian influence and gain power themselves?...good for US

the "aid" is really bribes or investments.

the US always gets its money worth (exept maybe osama)

SirRiff

[nova_satori]

Say what ? How many nations depend on US foreign aid to survive ?- let me count a few of them; Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, South Korea, Burma, sundry states in Latin America and so on.

South Korea? Can you provide any evidence?

Burma? Since....

Turkey doesn't survive on US aid. It's helpful, but they can do without it.