1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

State of the Union Address

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by midranger4, Jan 29, 2003.

  1. midranger4

    midranger4 Banned

    Is the above a less than subtle threat directed at Iran or did Bush mean Iraq? I was not aware Iran was on the radar as it pertained to WMDs.
     
  2. Sunriser13

    Sunriser13 Knee Deep in Paradise

    Mid, I wondered about that myself as I watched the speech last night. When he first said Iran, I figured he meant Iraq, and that the media would rip him a new one over the error. But he went on speaking of Iran and Iranian citizens, so now I'm not sure what to think. It worries me, quite frankly...
     
  3. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    Iran has a newly-discovered nuke program. What the disposition of it is, I have no idea.

    SM
     
  4. mikepd

    mikepd Veteran Member

  5. IamZed

    IamZed ...

    Good God if he got our enemies wrong we should really follow him into combat, huh?
     
  6. Sir Joseph

    Sir Joseph Registered User

    I think he means that we won't bomb Iran because there, the people are speaking out, or at least starting to speak out. In Iraq (or Korea) the people don't, or can't, speak out. If we wait on Iran, the people might win. In Iraq, we have to bomb in order for the people to win.
     
  7. Coriolis

    Coriolis Bob's your uncle

    I refuse to believe this. We are not going to bomb Iraq for the Iraqi people. They may indeed benefit from us bouncing Saddam, but Iraq is going to be bombed because our administration believes that Saddam poses a risk to <b>us</b>. Did you forget the war on terror? It would be nice if our administration were that altruistic, but come on, do you really think this is being done for the benefit of the Iraqi people? Iran is simply next in line. They've been on the "axis of evil" shit list since 9/11, and it will be only a matter of time (if Bush gets his way) before they rebel against US for occupying Iraq.

    <small>Nothing personal meant, SirJ, I'm feeling very pessimistic today about the world in general. </small>
     
  8. Stiofan

    Stiofan Master Po

    Iran was the chief sponsor of the terrorist attacks against us in Lebanon and elsewhere in the 1980s. They've moderated somewhat, but not enough and will be next unless they do away with the WMD.

    Terrorist sponsor state + WMD = You're on the bad list

    Bush made another speech this morning. The reason we're after Saddam is that after 9/11 it's proven that we can be attacked on the homeland. Obvioulsy not all countries that are able to do so (on their own or via terrorists) are likely to attack us. Those that are deemed likely are going to get some ass whoopin. We will not go through another 9/11 if at all possible. Saddam is merely first on the bad list.
     
  9. IamZed

    IamZed ...

    Regardless of the confusing Iran statement, I thought it was a good speech. I have always been a bit down on the man for not having a strong presence. He had one in this speech. It is all available at whitehouse.gov. He did not screw up and made perhaps the strongest state of the union I have ever heard.
     
  10. IamZed

    IamZed ...

    No one has ever been healed by a frivolous lawsuit. I urge the congress to pass medical liability reforms.

    Many others have met a different fate. Lets put it this way, they are no longer a threat to our friends and allies.
     
  11. IamZed

    IamZed ...

    You know I have been watching that speech over and over. Did he just promise to make the trains run on time?
     
  12. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    No, that was Hitler, 1937.
     
  13. bruzzes

    bruzzes Truthslayer

    I think the reference to Iran was meant in the context that not all terrorist countries have the exact same immediate dangers that would entail war.

    Iraq's people are weak, and against a strong dictator cannot rise up against him.

    Iran's people are continuing to become restive in the fundamental rigidity of their government. Many want reforms and more freedom. This will be increased, especially if after Iraq falls, and a more moderate form of government becomes established then the economic resurgence and liberty afforded to the Iraqi people will force Iran's rulers to moderate their fundamental views or risk outright revolt. Hence war would not be necessary as the people within will change the government by themselves.
    There is a long history of friendship and cooperation between Iran's people and the US. If the Shah had not become drunk with power and elitism and remained moderate like Jordan's King, history would have been quite different in that region. It won't be long before Iran is surrounded by progressive governments. In order to survive and keep it's economy on a par with the other countries around it, Iran cannot remain governed by clerics.

    As for the other "axis of evil', North Korea, war is not inevitable there either. Let the security counsel of the UN deal with them. Other countries must get involved and if China and Russia exert their influence then North Korea will have to acquiesce.

    Different threats,...Different Strategies.
     
  14. Stiofan

    Stiofan Master Po

    No, it was attributed to Benito Mussolini, at about the same time.


    <small>ducks, and scurries away....</small>
     
  15. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Absolutely true, and thanks for the correction. I tend to mix up my fascists.
     
  16. melpomene

    melpomene Banned

    agree with your post bruzzes.

    i think Bush's reference to Iran, was a taste of what could be for the people and the country. i believe, they are restless, and want more freedom and choice. Iran flourished under the days of the Shah, with US help.

    i am reading all these "war" and " military" threads to gain insight into the coming months.

    there is not much news or probing going on in australia at the moment.
     

Share This Page