Home | Community | Message Board


Kratom Eye
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Amazon Shop: Scales

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1
OfflineLordMorham
High Lord @Revelstone
Registered: 09/08/02
Posts: 47
Loc: Revelstone
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Bush's speech to the UN
    #883426 - 09/14/02 06:45 AM (14 years, 10 months ago)

ok, here's the text of the speech.

those of you who disagree with US policy toward Iraq should find ample amunition.

I for one agree with everything he said.

Mr. Secretary General, Mr. President, distinguished ladies and gentlemen: We meet one year and one day after a terrorist attack brought grief to my country, and to the citizens of many countries. Yesterday, we remembered the innocent lives taken that terrible morning. Today, we turn to the urgent duty of protecting other lives, without illusion and without fear.

We have accomplished much in the last year - in Afghanistan and beyond. We have much yet to do - in Afghanistan and beyond. Many nations represent here have joined in the fight against global terror - and the people of the United States are grateful.

The United Nations was born in the hope that survived a world war - the hope of a world moving toward justice, escaping old patterns of conflict and fear. The founding members resolved that the peace of the world must never again be destroyed by the will and wickedness of any man. We created a United Nations Security Council, so that - unlike the League of Nations - our deliberations would be more than talk, and our resolutions would be more than wishes. After generations of deceitful dictators, broken treaties and squandered lives, we dedicate ourselves to standards of human dignity shared by all, and to a system of security defended by all.

Today, these standards, and this security, are challenged.

Our commitment to human dignity is challenged by persistent poverty and raging disease. The suffering is great, and our responsibilities are clear. The United States is joining with the world to supply aid where it reaches people and lift up lives ... to extend trade and the prosperity it brings ... and to bring medical care where it is desperately needed.

As a symbol of our commitment to human dignity, the United State will return to UNESCO. This organization has been reformed and America will participate fully in its mission to advance human rights, tolerance, and learning.

Our common security is challenged by regional conflicts - ethnic and religious strife that is ancient but not inevitable. In the Middle East, there can be no peace for either side without freedom for both sides. America stands committed to an independent and democratic Palestine, living beside Israel in peace and security. Like all other people, Palestinians deserve a government that serves their interests and listens to their voices. My nation will continue to encourage all parties to step up to their responsibilities as we seek a just and comprehensive settlement to the conflict.

Above all, our principles and our security are challenged today by outlaw groups and regimes that accept no law of morality and have no limit to their violent ambitions. In the attacks on America a year ago, we saw the destructive intentions of our enemies. This threat hides within many nations, including my own. In cells and camps, terrorists are plotting further destruction and building new bases for their war against civilization. And our greatest fear is that terrorists will find a shortcut to their mad ambitions when an outlaw regime supplies them with the technologies to kill on a massive scale.

In one place - in one regime - we find all these dangers, in their most lethal and aggressive forms ... exactly the kind of aggressive threat the United Nations was born to confront.

Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime's forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped - by the might of coalition forces, and the will of the United Nations.

To suspend hostilities and to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear: to him, and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations.

He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge - be his deceptions, and by his cruelties - Saddam Hussein has made the case again himself.

In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities - which, the Council said, ``threaten(ed) international peace and security in the region."

This demand goes ignored. Last year, the UN Commission on Human rights found that Iraq continues to commit "extremely grave violations" of human rights and that the regime's repression is ``all pervasive." Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating, burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands; children in the presence of their parents - all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.

In 1991, the UN Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary-General's high-level coordinator of this issue reported that Kuwaiti, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for - more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them.

In 1991, the UN Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded the Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organization that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American president. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September 11th. And Al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan are known to be in Iraq.

In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.

From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of litres of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. UN inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

United Nations inspections also reveal that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard, and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.

And in 1995 - after four years of deception - Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.

Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its unclear program - weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials, and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminium tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons.

Iraq also possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with ranges beyond the 150 kilometres permitted by the UN. Work at testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is building more long-range missiles that could inflict mass death throughout the region.

In 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the world imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. Those sanctions were maintained after the war to compel the regime's compliance with Security Council resolutions. In time, Iraq was allowed to use oil revenues to buy food. Saddam Hussein has subverted this program, working around the sanctions to buy missile technology and military materials. He blames the suffering of Iraq's people on the United Nations, even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and arms his country. By refusing to comply with his own agreements, he bears full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi citizens.

In 1991, Iraq promised UN inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq's commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading and harassing UN inspectors before ceasing co-operation entirely. Just months after the 1991 ceasefire, the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime co-operate fully with inspectors, "condemning" Iraq's "serious violations" of its obligations. The Security Council again renewed that demand in 1994 and twice more in 1996, ``deploring" Iraq's "clear violations" of its obligations. The Security Council renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing "flagrant violations" and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq's behaviour "totally unacceptable." And in 1999, the demand was renewed yet again.

As we meet today, it has been almost four years since the last UN inspectors set foot in Iraq - four years for the Iraqi regime to plan and build and test behind a cloak of secrecy.

We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in the country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic and the facts lead to one conclusion. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.

Delegates to the General Assembly: We have been more than patient. We have tried sanctions. We have tried the carrot of "oil for food" and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has nuclear weapons is when, God forbid, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming.

The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of UN demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honoured and enforced or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding or will it be irrelevant?

The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the UN to be effective and respected and successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced. Right now these resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by UN Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans and others - again as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully co-operate with international efforts to resolve these issues - as required by the Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept UN administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis - a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty and internationally supervised elections.

The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people, who have suffered for too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it and the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.

We can harbour no illusions. Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980, and Kuwait in 1990. He has fired ballistic missiles at Iran, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Israel. His regime once ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in Northern Iraq. He has gassed many Iranians and 40 Iraqi villages.

My nation will work with the UN Security Council on a new resolution to meet our common challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately and decisively to hold Iraq to account. The purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced - the just demands of peace and security will be met - or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.

Events can turn in one of two ways.

If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. The regime will have new power to bully, dominate and conquer its neighbours, condemning the Middle East to more years of bloodshed and fear. The region will remain unstable, with little hope of freedom and isolated from the progress of our times. With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.

If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond. And we will show that the promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time.

Neither of these outcomes is certain. Both have been set before us. We must choose between a world of fear and a world of progress. We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must stand up for our security, and for the permanent rights and hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand. Delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand as well.



--------------------
"Stone and Sea" - Saltheart



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineToxicManM
Bite me, it's fun!
 User Gallery

Registered: 06/28/02
Posts: 6,509
Loc: Aurora, Colorado
Last seen: 20 hours, 41 minutes
Re: Bush's speech to the UN [Re: LordMorham]
    #883566 - 09/14/02 08:33 AM (14 years, 10 months ago)

The speech in and of itself is fine. The problem is that he didn't actually give any reason why Iraq should be attacked *now*. All of his reasons are old. The most recent date in the speech for something Iraq did is 1995 (the dates after 1995 are dates the UN did things). We should attack a sovereign nation because of something they did 7 years ago? If it was that big a deal why didn't we attack 7 years ago? Or 10?

There were good reasons that Bush I and Clinton didn't invade Iraq. I might be a bit more open to it if Bush II were to review those reasons and tell us what has changed to make it a good idea now.


--------------------
Happy mushrooming!


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineMortMtroN
journeyman
Registered: 09/09/02
Posts: 62
Last seen: 14 years, 9 months
Re: Bush's speech to the UN [Re: LordMorham]
    #883578 - 09/14/02 08:38 AM (14 years, 10 months ago)


I would agree with most of what he says, if only it wasn't blatantly hypocritical

"Mr. Secretary General, Mr. President, distinguished ladies and gentlemen: We meet one year and one day after a terrorist attack brought grief to my country, and to the citizens of many countries."

like the 3000 civilians we killed in Afghanistan

"Yesterday, we remembered the innocent lives taken that terrible morning. Today, we turn to the urgent duty of protecting other lives, without illusion and without fear. "

Only American lives, nobody else matters

"We have accomplished much in the last year - in Afghanistan and beyond."

We sure did didn't we

" After generations of deceitful dictators,"


Many of them funded by the US like Ariel Sharon, Al Queda, Saddam Hussein, The Columbian Death Squads, Noriega.....just to name a few

"broken treaties"

Broken by the US

"and squandered lives, we dedicate ourselves to standards of human dignity shared by all, and to a system of security defended by all. "

Once again this only applies to western civilization

"Today, these standards, and this security, are challenged. "

By Dubya himself

"Our commitment to human dignity is challenged by persistent poverty and raging disease."

Like the radiation poisoning affecting so many Iraqi citizens after we bombed them in the Gulf War, and the poverty they suffer because of UN sanctions

"The suffering is great, and our responsibilities are clear."

Yeah, remove the sanctions and leave those poor people the fuck alone

"The United States is joining with the world to supply aid where it reaches people"

Once again, aid is supplied by the US to dictators across the map, Saddam is a perfect example. We can all thank the CIA for helping to get Saddam in power and for funding his regime,

" to extend trade and the prosperity it brings ... and to bring medical care where it is desperately needed. "

This makes me sick when I think of the hospitals we bombed in Afghanistan, and the prosperity american corporations bring with their sweat shops, and Monsanto's recent attempts at water privatization in the third world

"Our common security is challenged by regional conflicts - ethnic and religious strife that is ancient but not inevitable. In the Middle East, there can be no peace for either side without freedom for both sides. America stands committed to an independent and democratic Palestine, living beside Israel in peace and security. Like all other people, Palestinians deserve a government that serves their interests and listens to their voices. My nation will continue to encourage all parties to step up to their responsibilities as we seek a just and comprehensive settlement to the conflict. "

It is Georgie that opposed the formation of a Palestinian state a few months back. What better solution can there be to Palestinian independence?

"Above all, our principles and our security are challenged today by outlaw groups and regimes that accept no law of morality and have no limit to their violent ambitions."

Well since it is unconstitutional for the Supreme Court to appoint a president, that makes his presidency illegitimate. Dubya has also refused to listen to the UN time and time again, breaking international law. So doesn't that make him an outlaw?

" In the attacks on America a year ago, we saw the destructive intentions of our enemies."

and the destructive retaliation of the US government

"This threat hides within many nations, including my own."

I think he may be on to something here. think harder Georgie.

"In cells and camps,"

Perhaps he is referring to the camps that Ashcroft wants to set up to detain US citizens that he deems "threats to homeland security."

" terrorists are plotting further destruction and building new bases for their war against civilization."

Like the bases we now have in Afghanistan, and that, if we nuke Iraq, we will set up there too.

"And our greatest fear is that terrorists will find a shortcut to their mad ambitions when an outlaw regime supplies them with the technologies to kill on a massive scale. "

The US, the biggest terrorist organization in the world, already has thousands of nukes.

"In one place - in one regime - we find all these dangers, in their most lethal and aggressive forms ... exactly the kind of aggressive threat the United Nations was born to confront. "

That's it , Georgie, who is it? think harder.......

"Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation."
Much like US bombing the Afghan citizens without provocation.

"And the regime's forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources."

sounds familiar, what regime do you think he is talking about?

"Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped - by the might of coalition forces, and the will of the United Nations. "
maybe if he was never put in power.......

"He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge - be his deceptions, and by his cruelties - Saddam Hussein has made the case again himself. "

That's more than Dubya can say for himself, he just blatantly ignores the UN, until it comes time that he needs them for something.

" Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment,"

PATRIOT act.

"In 1991, the UN Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded the Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organization that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American president. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September 11th. And Al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan are known to be in Iraq. "

And absolutely nothing makes our actions any better.

"In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge. "

We have all of those things, and have never had a UN inspection, maybe we should instead try to set an example by the world by making the first move toward disarmament.


"UN inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. "

speculation

"United Nations inspections also reveal that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard, and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons."

speculation

"And in 1995 - after four years of deception - Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. "

and were it not for our putting the regime in power, that war could never have happened

"Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its unclear program - weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials, and documentation of foreign assistance."

it is speculation that this information even exists, since there is no hard evidence that Iraq even has nukes.

"Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminium tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons. "

appetite is one thing, but since he can't get them now, why would he be able to get them in the future?

"Iraq also possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with ranges beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by the UN. Work at testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is building more long-range missiles that could inflict mass death throughout the region."

We used cluster bombs in Afghanistan against international law.

"In 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the world imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. Those sanctions were maintained after the war to compel the regime's compliance with Security Council resolutions. In time, Iraq was allowed to use oil revenues to buy food. Saddam Hussein has subverted this program, working around the sanctions to buy missile technology and military materials. He blames the suffering of Iraq's people on the United Nations, even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and arms his country. By refusing to comply with his own agreements, he bears full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi citizens. "

just because he won't help the citizens of his country doesn't give us the right to do the same. If sanctions were lifted the Iraqi people would be more capable of getting Saddam out of power, since they probably want it to happen. They wanted it to happen in the Gulf War yet we did nothing to help Kuwait refugees or to help the people of Iraq get Saddam out of Power.

"In 1991, Iraq promised UN inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq's commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading and harassing UN inspectors before ceasing co-operation entirely. Just months after the 1991 ceasefire, the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime co-operate fully with inspectors, "condemning" Iraq's "serious violations" of its obligations. The Security Council again renewed that demand in 1994 and twice more in 1996, ``deploring" Iraq's "clear violations" of its obligations. The Security Council renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing "flagrant violations" and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq's behaviour "totally unacceptable." And in 1999, the demand was renewed yet again. "

As if the US would behave any differently if the UN started doing its job and did a weapon's inspection on the US.

"As we meet today, it has been almost four years since the last UN inspectors set foot in Iraq - four years for the Iraqi regime to plan and build and test behind a cloak of secrecy. "

We have had centuries

"We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in the country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic and the facts lead to one conclusion. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence."

I have seen no evidence, only speculation.

" To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take. "

so lets just kill off a bunch of Iraqi people and leave Saddam in power, just like we did in the Gulf War, when Dubya's daddy was in power.

"Delegates to the General Assembly: We have been more than patient. We have tried sanctions. We have tried the carrot of "oil for food" and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has nuclear weapons is when, God forbid, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming."

He continues to try to build weapons of mass destruction, we already have them. We owe it to the Iraqi citizens to not kill them because of speculation.

"The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations,"

what authority, the UN doesn't have the authority to do weapon's inspections on the US.

"and a threat to peace."

How can he talk of peace as he asks the UN for permission to bomb a country, an action that will put the Iraqi people into further poverty and misery, killing thousands in the process.

"Iraq has answered a decade of UN demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding or will it be irrelevant? "

This coming from the man that vetoed a decision by the Security council to set up a world court for international criminals for people like Saddam, Bin Laden, and Bush.



"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles and all related material. "

again this is speculation that he even has them. If we want peace, we should probably do the same. War can never bring peace, so as long as we have these weapons we are a threat to peace throughout the world.

"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by UN Security Council resolutions. "

He always does this, talks about what another regime should do, while it is exactly what the US should do.

"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans and others - again as required by Security Council resolutions."
We should likewise stop persecution of Arab Americans, Native Americans, Mexicans, and all immigrants. We should also cease the persucution of our citizens that has been brought about by the PATRIOT act.






"The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people, who have suffered for too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it and the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq. "

actions speak louder than words, just look at the gulf war. After we bombed the fuck out of the Iraqi people we left Saddam in power. And once again we are seeking to bomb the Iraqi people. It is always the civilian noncombatants who pay the biggest cost of war, and people like Saddam and Bush who reap all the reward.

"We can harbour no illusions. Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980, and Kuwait in 1990. He has fired ballistic missiles at Iran, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Israel. His regime once ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in Northern Iraq. He has gassed many Iranians and 40 Iraqi villages. "

and we put this person in power. All I can ask is why? Why did we allow this to happen? Why did we fund this regime?


Events can turn in one of two ways.

" And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors. "

they already have been a prelude to great horrors commited against the Afghan people.

"If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine,"

WTF is he talking about a democratic Palestine??? Palestine doesn't exist. The Iraqi people are captive by UN sanctions, and Afghanistan now has an equally repressive puppet government for the US.



"Neither of these outcomes is certain. Both have been set before us. We must choose between a world of fear and a world of progress. We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must stand up for our security, and for the permanent rights and hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand. Delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand as well."

Heil Bush, and good night.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineLordMorham
High Lord @Revelstone
Registered: 09/08/02
Posts: 47
Loc: Revelstone
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: Bush's speech to the UN [Re: MortMtroN]
    #883661 - 09/14/02 09:39 AM (14 years, 10 months ago)

IMG!

where do you get your information? from the back of bubble gum wrappers? or perhaps the Al Jazeera..

there is way too much missinformation and wild conjecture in your post to be dealt with at one time. so, i will start with one of the most often repeated bits of bullshit

"and we put this person in power. All I can ask is why? Why did we allow this to happen? Why did we fund this regime?"



We did not "put" Hussein in power.

Saddam Hussein was born on April 28, 1937, in the village of al-Auja near the town of Takrit. His family was quite poor. His early childhood was spent in a mud hut in a mostly Sunni Muslim part of Iraq, which is approximately one-hundred miles north of Baghdad. Hussein's father, Hussein al-Majid, died or abandoned the family (according to who is reporting the story), within a short time of his birth.

Saddam was raised alone by his mother Subha, until she took a second husband, Ibrahim Hassan. Hassan, brutal and a thief, enlisted Saddam in his criminal ventures. According to a former personal secretary of Hussein, his step father abused Saddam and sent him to steal chickens and sheep to be sold.

During WWII, in April, 1941, in accordance to a 1930 treaty, Iraq permitted the British to move their troops into Iraq. Opposition Iraqis in the Army received Nazi support and attacked the British air base at Habbaniya. The Iraqi army was beaten and England resumed military control. Saddam Hussein's uncle Khayrallah Tulfa, an Iraqi Army Officer, was jailed for his role in the Nazi sponsored insurrection. He was released in 1946. He was a staunch supporter of Nazi Germany and revered Hitler.

In 1947, at the age of ten, Saddam was allowed to move in with his uncle, Khayrallah Tulfah, in Baghdad. Tulfah had a profound effect on young Saddam's political education and thought. To that end, Tulfah was so important to Saddam, that he later was appointed Governor of Baghdad under Hussein. In 1981, Saddam republished a pamphlet written by his uncle entitled "Three Whom God Should Not Have Created: Iranians, Jews, and Flies."

Saddam joined the radical socialist nationalist movement Baath party when he was 19. In 1956, he participated in a non-successful coup attempt against the monarchy of King Faisal II. In 1958, a non-Baathist group of army officers succeeded in overthrowing the King. The group was led by General Abdul Kassim.

In 1959, Saddam and a group of Baathist supporters attempted to assassinate Gen. Kassim. The attack was unsuccessful, but it helped place Hussein in a leadership position in the Baath party. After the attack, in which Hussein was wounded, he fled to Syria and then to Cairo, Egypt where he would spend the next four years.

In 1963 Saddam returned to Iraq to take part in another revolt against General Kassim. A group of Baathist army officers tortured and assassinated General Kassim. This was done on Iraqi television. They also mutilated many of Kassim's devotees and showed their bodies in close up on the nightly news.

Hussein rose quickly through the ranks, known for his extreme efficiency as a torturer. He was appointed to be a member of the Baath Regional Command. In 1964, Hussein was jailed by some "rightist" military officers who opposed the Baathist takeover. In 1966 he "escaped" from prison and Saddam's older cousin, General Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr, appointed him deputy Secretary-General of the Baathists.

Saddam set up the Baathist internal party security system known as the Jihaz Haneen. It was to serve as the vehicle for his rise to power in Iraq. In 1968, another major upheaval in Iraq gave Hussein the greatest opportunity for further advancement; his mentor, Gen. Bakr and the Baathist seized the government.

Saddam was appointed Deputy Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council and built the Iraqi secret police network. On July 16, 1979, President Bakr resigned, officially due to health problems, but in reality a victim of Hussein's thirst for power.

Saddam called a major Baathist meeting on July 22, 1979, where various family members and other Hussein devotees urged that the party be "cleansed". Hussein then read a list of names and asked that they step outside. Once there, they were taken into custody.

A high-ranking member of the Revolutionary Command, the head of the labor unions, the leading Shiite member of the Command, and twenty others were then systematically and personally killed by Hussein and his top party officials.

During the next few days, 450 other military officers, deputy prime ministers, and "non-party faithful" were rounded up and killed. This purge insured Hussein's consolidation of power in Iraq.




--------------------
"Stone and Sea" - Saltheart



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineLordMorham
High Lord @Revelstone
Registered: 09/08/02
Posts: 47
Loc: Revelstone
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: Bush's speech to the UN [Re: ToxicMan]
    #883681 - 09/14/02 09:49 AM (14 years, 10 months ago)

"The speech in and of itself is fine. The problem is that he didn't actually give any reason why Iraq should be attacked *now*. All of his reasons are old. The most recent date in the speech for something Iraq did is 1995 (the dates after 1995 are dates the UN did things). We should attack a sovereign nation because of something they did 7 years ago? If it was that big a deal why didn't we attack 7 years ago? Or 10?"

it's not a question of what he did 5, 7 or 10 years AGO.

it's a question of what he has been doing and failing to do for the LAST 10 years.


--------------------
"Stone and Sea" - Saltheart



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Bush's speech to the UN [Re: MortMtroN]
    #883710 - 09/14/02 10:02 AM (14 years, 10 months ago)

Great post Mort.

Lord Moreham - you might wanna tell the CIA the US didn't install Saddam in power. They refer to the moment Saddam came to power as "Our favourite coup". The relationship between Saddam and Reagan/Bush was so close it was referred to as "the love affair". Bush loaned Saddam a billion dollars the year after the Halabja gassings and indeed defended Saddam - saying the evidence that Saddam had actually done the gassings was "unclear" and may all have been done by the Iranians.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Bush's speech to the UN [Re: LordMorham]
    #883718 - 09/14/02 10:06 AM (14 years, 10 months ago)

it's a question of what he has been doing and failing to do for the LAST 10 years.

What isn't 600,000 kids under 5 dead from the sanctions enough payback for you?

And since when did acquiring weapons of mass destruction become a reason to invade a country? If that's the case then america needs to invade Israel pretty quick cos that's where the most weapons of mass destruction are. And the proof for that is beyond doubt - not just hot air and bullshit like the claims against Iraq are.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 6 months
Re: Bush's speech to the UN [Re: Xlea321]
    #883737 - 09/14/02 10:20 AM (14 years, 10 months ago)

Alex123 writes:

And since when did acquiring weapons of mass destruction become a reason to invade a country?

The acquisition of WMD alone is not sufficient reason to overthrow a government, according to international law. But Iraq agreed to surrender terms in which the acquisition of WMD was expressly forbidden. They are being threatened with retaliation because they are not abiding by the terms of the surrender.

Note that this is not the ONLY provision of the surrender agreement they are violating.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Bush's speech to the UN [Re: Phred]
    #883747 - 09/14/02 10:28 AM (14 years, 10 months ago)

Well they've had retaliation for the last 10 years. There are 600,000 kids under 5 dead so far. Clearly an attack on Iraq is illegal in every international law court and the UN - which is why Bush will attack without the approval of the UN.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleLallafa
p_g monocle
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 2,598
Loc: underbelly
Re: Bush's speech to the UN [Re: Phred]
    #883842 - 09/15/02 07:31 PM (14 years, 10 months ago)

z


--------------------
my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson


Edited by Lallafa (02/26/10 12:48 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleGabbaDj
BTH
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/01
Posts: 19,478
Loc: By The Lake
Re: Bush's speech to the UN [Re: Lallafa]
    #883857 - 09/15/02 07:36 PM (14 years, 10 months ago)

Bush wasnt the only one to speak that day.. Their were three hours of speakers before bush and another two hours after.
Everyone focused on Iraq since its the hot toppic but the US is the only one who believes that we need to attack them to solve anything..
EVERY nation who spoke that day said the same things, Iraq needs to allow the inspections and needs to stop createing weapons of mass destruction but they all diplomatic ways of dealing with it...
After reading about the other speaches I get the feeling that the US is going to follow suit and try a more diplomatic approach..


--------------------
GabbaDj

FAMM.ORG          C8.com                    http://www.beatsopjefiets.com/   


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineToxicManM
Bite me, it's fun!
 User Gallery

Registered: 06/28/02
Posts: 6,509
Loc: Aurora, Colorado
Last seen: 20 hours, 41 minutes
Re: Bush's speech to the UN [Re: LordMorham]
    #884863 - 09/16/02 06:08 AM (14 years, 10 months ago)

I think you've missed my point.

If doing bad things to the people of the country you rule is grounds for invasion, then why aren't we invading North Korea? The last estimates I saw put the number of people who have been starved to death there in the millions.

If building wepons of mass destruction is grounds for invasion, then why aren't we invading Pakistan? They developed nuclear weapons only recently.

If ignoring UN resolutions is grounds for invasion, then why aren't we invading Israel? They've been ignoring some since the 1960s.

What has happened recently which now justifies the many thousands of deaths an invasion will cause? September 11? Saddam Hussein is a nasty person over whose death I will not shed a tear, but he is not an al Qaeda supporter.


--------------------
Happy mushrooming!


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineMortMtroN
journeyman
Registered: 09/09/02
Posts: 62
Last seen: 14 years, 9 months
Re: Bush's speech to the UN [Re: ToxicMan]
    #888025 - 09/17/02 11:31 AM (14 years, 10 months ago)

Well, maybe the CIA didn't "put" him in power. But he couldn't have been so sucessful without the CIA. Saddam was once a strong asset to the CIA, but since he started being naughty and doing things his own way, the US want to get him out of the way.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1

Amazon Shop: Scales

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Wouldn't we all like to see THIS Bush speech? Phred 903 9 09/15/04 05:28 AM
by Zahid
* Bush Planned Iraq 'Regime Change' Before Becoming President RonoS 1,204 12 09/29/03 03:00 PM
by Rono
* 1,000 Attempt Citizen's Arrest of Bush at UN; Blocked by Police, 10 to 12 Arrests kotik 656 9 10/02/07 04:12 PM
by kotik
* Bush seeks UN support Xlea321 830 6 10/04/02 04:15 PM
by Frog31337
* Bush Speech afoaf 535 5 05/25/04 04:37 PM
by afoaf
* For your perusal...Bush speech to Conservative Pol. Action Conference
( 1 2 all )
blackegg 3,138 35 03/07/08 01:04 AM
by blackegg
* Transcript of Bush's UN Speech Phred 623 18 09/22/04 10:46 AM
by Evolving
* Best Bush Speech Analysis I've Seen Ancalagon 464 1 09/04/04 03:18 PM
by JesusChrist

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil
1,110 topic views. 0 members, 3 guests and 2 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Vaposhop
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.053 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 19 queries.