It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush's address to the Nation..Your thoughts

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by worldwatcher
Does anyone read anything into the above section of the speech??

I know what your thinking and I agree, it sounds like preparations for a conflict with Iran to me. Not good.




posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 09:04 PM
link   
I know, let's have a contest for the best one line BushSpeech summaries:


We're gonna stay the course, all different this time.

Oops, I'm gonna do it again!

Heh!

I take responsibility for everything being Iraq's, Iran's and Syria's fault.

Bush to USA: drop dead.

Bush to Iraq: drop dead.

Bush to Dad: drop dead.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 09:04 PM
link   
The war mongering chimp is aiming towards a 3 front war with Iraq, Iran and Syria now. Thats what I took from the last 2/3 I heard. IE WWIII

Also, he is so incompetent he cannot even give a live speech. I wonder how many takes and reedits he needed to get this right!?



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 09:07 PM
link   
you must be joking..

I remember there was that Mission Accomplished Propaganda
This president is totally trustworthy


America wake up from a very bad dream!!!



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative
Dems have been crying since the beginning that Iraq is going badly. The dems only counter proposal is "Cut and Run." They want America to look bad to the rest of the world. They want America to lose this war. They believe that anything bad that happens to Bush and America is good for them.

If things were going that bad in Iraq, common sense says more troops would help the situation. A cut and run like what happened in Viet Nam is exactly what the Democrats want.

Dick Durbin is human scum. I actually felt ill watching this troop basher give his speech.



[edit on 10-1-2007 by RRconservative]


Nice piece of propaganda repetition dude.

This isn't about democrats or republicans, this is about either sending in enough troops to finish this, which you can't because that would mean killing nearly everyone in Bagdad or pulling out of Baghdad and letting the Iraqi's kill eachother off.

The later is for Bush and Co no option because then they would loose access to Iraq untill the civil war there was over.

Vietnam wasn't cut and run, it was send troops, send more troops, send even more troops for 10 more years untill the people had enough of the massive deathtoll that was ultimatly for nothing and had enough of the goverment trying to interfere in a civil war over there that had utterly nothing to do with America itself.

Iraq is the same, the only reason for fighting in Iraq now is "american interests" as echo'd again in this speech, but these "american interests" have nothing to do with America as a nation or a people, but everything to do with the rich and powerfull in america and the world that want control over the oil and a perpetual war so they can make more money.

They think they are america and the world, the people are nothing but fodder and slaves to them.

"American interests" when spoken by people like means 1 thing and 1 thing only, CORPORATE INTERESTS.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative
Dems have been crying since the beginning that Iraq is going badly. The dems only counter proposal is "Cut and Run." They want America to look bad to the rest of the world. They want America to lose this war. They believe that anything bad that happens to Bush and America is good for them.

If things were going that bad in Iraq, common sense says more troops would help the situation. A cut and run like what happened in Viet Nam is exactly what the Democrats want.

Dick Durbin is human scum. I actually felt ill watching this troop basher give his speech.



Please explain to me, how the dems would benefit if the USA looked incompitent.. i mean.. they are part of the USA governemnt are they not?

Jesus, people mightnt be as shallow as yourself mate... they dont want to murder the USA just to be incharge you know... maybe they want the repubs out, because they are the ones that have gotten the USA into this friggen mess? did you think about that?

OR are you happy with the state of the USA at present?
are you glad your men and women are dying in vein?
are you happy your leaders failed to stop 911?
if so, then please... continue blasting the dems for wanting change.

and before you go off the handle, I am not an american, nor do I support ANY party. I dont understand why you have to label people one or the other.


[edit on 10-1-2007 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by worldwatcher
The transcript of the speech can be found here for those who haven't seen it or are looking for his reasoning behind the troop surge.

President Bush's Speech on Iraq




We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence sharing — and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.


Does anyone read anything into the above section of the speech??


[edit on 1-10-2007 by worldwatcher]


Smells like a pre-emptive strike could be on the horizon for Iran? The political babble from the Republican and Democrats all start to sound the same after the first minute or two. He has to secure "interest" well we all know what that is...For some rason I feel he needs to get a small strike force that could prevent a Iranian surge after "someone" hits their energy plants? Who knows I'm so tired of our government NOT listening to the people? And that goes for the both parties...I feel sad that I may see a day before my 8 month old daughter is grown that I feel I need to move to another country so she may have safe and normal life.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

Please explain to me, how the dems would benefit if the USA looked incompitent.. i mean.. they are part of the USA governemnt are they not?

OR are you happy with the state of the USA at present?
are you glad your men and women are dying in vein?
are you happy your leaders failed to stop 911?
if so, then please... continue blasting the dems for wanting change.

and before you go off the handle, I am not an american, nor do I support ANY party. I dont understand why you have to label people one or the other.



To answer some of your questions:

Democrats benefit because they can blame Bush.

I am fairly happy with the state of the USA.

Men and Women are not dying in Vain. They are doing their duty to protect the USA!

I am not happy that Bill Clinton was directly responsible for 9/11. Then sent in Sandy Bergler to steal national archives to cover up that fact.

Democrats do want a change. A change is a surge in troops. A troop withdrawal is wanting defeat.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative
Dems have been crying since the beginning that Iraq is going badly. The dems only counter proposal is "Cut and Run." They want America to look bad to the rest of the world. They want America to lose this war. They believe that anything bad that happens to Bush and America is good for them.

If things were going that bad in Iraq, common sense says more troops would help the situation. A cut and run like what happened in Viet Nam is exactly what the Democrats want.

Dick Durbin is human scum. I actually felt ill watching this troop basher give his speech.




[edit on 10-1-2007 by RRconservative]


You need to peel yourself away from the E.I.B. network and Hannity so you can get some blood flowing to your brain?? "Cut & Run"??? You know Republicans cry this is a page from the Democratic play book..cut&run...cut&run..This is a page from the Republican play book to keep selling fear..were all gonna die when the Democrats take over terrorist are going to start falling outta the sky..Your kids will be coverted to radical Islam? Come on...you conservative and liberials are the same bucko..republican and democrat the same not one is different than the other. When you knuckle heads start closing some government branches down (i.e.) IRS



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 09:43 PM
link   
It doesnt make sense to believe the dems would benefit if the USA lost.
The republicans already look worthless and curropt.
The whats that approval rating, 30 something %?

Im glad your happy with the state your country is in, because I can tell you. Its in BADDD shape. .you must be easily satisfied hey?
Your troops are dying in Vein...
They are not there to ensure the safety of America, they are unable to do anything about the resentment towards the USA from Iraq.

Staying in Iraq is not going to protect america at all.
A surge in troops is not a change,
its a vietnam era concept that will not help.

How can you still stick with this failed/illegial war?
after all that has come to light and that has happened, how can you possibly believe america is benefiting from this action



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by tsloan

You need to peel yourself away from the E.I.B. network and Hannity


and what, listen to liberal talk radio? Wait...there is no such thing!



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 09:48 PM
link   

[edit on 1-10-2007 by worldwatcher]

Smells like a pre-emptive strike could be on the horizon for Iran? The political babble from the Republican and Democrats all start to sound the same after the first minute or two. He has to secure "interest" well we all know what that is...For some rason I feel he needs to get a small strike force that could prevent a Iranian surge after "someone" hits their energy plants? Who knows I'm so tired of our government NOT listening to the people? And that goes for the both parties...I feel sad that I may see a day before my 8 month old daughter is grown that I feel I need to move to another country so she may have safe and normal life.


I agree, further military hardware,
20,000 troops,
Israel talking to China this week,
The Nuclear strike report out of Israel...

There's a lot of bloody military hardware in the gulf, and a hell of a lot of troops in the region... with Iran not standing down...
i think speech could be a stall to the inevitable.

even if bush wanted to get out of iraq, or believed the USA Could leave succesfully, it wouldnt be wise being Iran is obviously not going to stop its enrichment.

[edit on 10-1-2007 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 09:48 PM
link   
The parts of the speech concerning the new strategy about Iran and Syria worries me. First, the deployment of another carrier strike group to the Gulf can only mean that a first strike attack in Syria/Iran is now officially on the table. You don't spend that kind of money to make people "feel safe" as Bush said. Those ships are there in case Iran or Syria attack Israel, or in case Bush and Crew decide to strike Iran or Syria. Second, the laughable increase of 20,000 troops, only 4,000 of which will be deployed outside of Baghdad will certainly not help curb the outside influence Syria and Iran have been making in Iraq. In fact, a troop increase of 20,000 is basically meaningless. When these troops are split up and embedded with the Iraqi army brigades, it will only result in a few "American Supervisors" to go along with the Iraqi groups. The house by house, street by street clearing of Baghdad will likely also result in countless civilians and military casualties. Many of the new troops being sent to Baghdad will have seen little or no real urban combat. Even the seasoned troops will face unavoidable danger when they enter the back alleys of Baghdad. Anyway back to the carrier strike group. Air strikes on convoys entering Iraq from Syria especially will likely increase in order to stem the influx of weapons and know-how to start up insurgents across Iraq. Also, as the situation in An-Bar province becomes more grave, air strikes will likely increase there. The 4,000 troops sent to quell the al-qaeda influence in an-bar will have a hard time securing a hostile area the size of Utah in which they are unfamiliar with the terrain, locals, customs, and are unable to visually distinguish between civilians and hostiles.

all in all, 160,000 troops will not come close to doing a better job than 140,000 troops. especially when these troops are relatively less experienced that current soldiers and are embedded with Iraqi divisions with whom US soldiers surely have a hard time communicating.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative

I am not happy that Bill Clinton was directly responsible for 9/11.


I put this in the catagory of 'No New Taxes', 'Saddam has WMD' and 'I Did Not Have Sexual Relations With That Woman'.

Please tell me where your got your 'facts' that Bill Clinton was directly responsible for 911. Was it Fox News?
Dont you think it odd that Daddy Bush and Clinton are best of chums now?
Dont you think that if 'Bill Clinton was directly responsible for 911' atleast one of your vaunted republicans would charge him with something?

Your statement is ludicrous.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
I think this clearly shows that the IRAQI police/army we are creating, Isnt going to work.
:

how long is this 20,000 troop addition going to be considered the 'next step' until it becomes apparent that it achieved nothing?
What will we do then ? we cant possibly send in MORE troops....

Not for nothin', but what's with this "we" business? You're not American. Aren't you from New Zealand? And didn't you guys pull out in 2004?



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by QuasiShaman
The war mongering chimp is aiming towards a 3 front war with Iraq, Iran and Syria now. Thats what I took from the last 2/3 I heard. IE WWIII

Also, he is so incompetent he cannot even give a live speech. I wonder how many takes and reedits he needed to get this right!?

Yes, you're right. It's a much better idea to allow Iran to continue to train, fund, and supply the insurgency in Iraq.


And you're also right about the fact that the speech being pre-recorded was somehow a bad thing. It's so much better to be live because....what was that reason again?



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11Bravo

Originally posted by RRconservative

I am not happy that Bill Clinton was directly responsible for 9/11.


I put this in the catagory of 'No New Taxes', 'Saddam has WMD' and 'I Did Not Have Sexual Relations With That Woman'.

Please tell me where your got your 'facts' that Bill Clinton was directly responsible for 911. Was it Fox News?
Dont you think it odd that Daddy Bush and Clinton are best of chums now?
Dont you think that if 'Bill Clinton was directly responsible for 911' atleast one of your vaunted republicans would charge him with something?

Your statement is ludicrous.

Don't forget to add that if Clintonits were at fault then wouldn't that mean that Daddy Bush was really responsible as well?? And Regan and Carter wait....wait..a pattern is forming here....wait..Hey these guys all belong to the SAME two political parties...hey does that mean that they all are a buncha political sweat drippings from the area of my lower abdomonal region..Yessss! And does that mean we can say we have been dumb to vote the same two parties into power over,and over again?? Well maybe next time some of us will understand that they can vote for people who don't have (R) and (D) beside their name. After all we might get someone who isn't bought off?



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Correct I am A kiwi.
But I live in Australia.
And unforunately being the USA managed to dupe Johnny howard into this war, it kinda puts aussie front and centre too.

As WE, I refer to the west.
being this war is the west vs the east.


We didnt pull out either, we were smart enough to ignore your stupid president and his war.

hell we dont even let the aircraft carriers dock in our shores let alone join you on illegial escapades around the globe.

And IT IS FOR NOTHING.
There's absolutley no benefit in us being in IRaq.

US, THE WEST!



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 10:17 PM
link   
TO start with I am not here to say that he came up with the answer or that he did not . I don"t no if anyone can , But there is some things that even I can think of , Our young men are being killed every day . we take A target . clean it out go on to a new target only for them to come back in and regroup .HOW does that help us .It will not end the war . Why cant they put some of the trained Iraqy soliders take command of it and and keep it ? they dont do any thing else . All of them have a part they can do for there own future .Our Men need there help . When our men dont have PRES .Bush behind them they will be lost . with the Demarats we all no they are all cowards.Pres. BUSH IS THE BEST WE HAVE . AND THEY ALL NO IT . I am sorry about my bad spelling .



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maverick44
TO start with I am not here to say that he came up with the answer or that he did not . I don"t no if anyone can , But there is some things that even I can think of , Our young men are being killed every day . we take A target . clean it out go on to a new target only for them to come back in and regroup .HOW does that help us .It will not end the war . Why cant they put some of the trained Iraqy soliders take command of it and and keep it ? they dont do any thing else . All of them have a part they can do for there own future .Our Men need there help . When our men dont have PRES .Bush behind them they will be lost . with the Demarats we all no they are all cowards.Pres. BUSH IS THE BEST WE HAVE . AND THEY ALL NO IT . I am sorry about my bad spelling .


The Democrats and Republicans are the same my friend so don't try to spin this two party stuff wake up..They meaning republicans and democrats have a stake in this thing they both could careless about the troops they both are making a buncha political hype with the bi-partisian lines to have platforms to run on..Don't you see this?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join