# Is the USA now respected worldwide?



## Beau (Oct 4, 2007)

Now that North Korea has tested its nuclear bomb and tested an ICBM, do you feel safer under our current president's leadership?

We had no idea that North Korea had this capability, nor did we know of this upcoming test. Current events should reveal the hollow words and rhetoric of our president.

The following are excerpted quotes from Obama's speech on National Security:

_"We're investing in the 21st century military and intelligence capabilities that will allow us to stay one step ahead of a nimble enemy. We have re-energized a global non-proliferation regime to deny the world's most dangerous people access to the world's deadliest weapons...And we have renewed American diplomacy so that we once again have the strength and standing to truly lead the world...._

_Fidelity to our values is the reason why the United States of America grew from a small string of colonies under the writ of an empire to the strongest nation in the world._

_It's the reason why enemy soldiers have surrendered to us in battle, knowing they'd receive better treatment from America's Armed Forces than from their own government._

_It's the reason why America has benefitted from strong alliances that amplified our power, and drawn a sharp, moral contrast with our adversaries._

_It's the reason why we've been able to overpower the iron fist of fascism and outlast the iron curtain of communism, and enlist free nations and free peoples everywhere in the common cause and common effort of liberty."_

Well, I think it is very interesting that our enemies have become emboldened enough to finally stand up to America. Perhaps they know what too many Americans don't know, our president is weak and therefore, not a respected leader on the world stage.

Perhaps we are preceived as weak because of our deficit. Perhaps we are perceived as weak because our own president apologizes for the actions of our country which occurred in past US presidential administrations.

I don't feel safe. Our Constitution is almost worthless, much like our currency, and now puny regimes like North Korea and Iran rise up and flex their muscles. We will stand idly by and hope the UN does something. We are no longer the world's leader.

Leadership is a mantle one assumes. Our president has not put on his mantle of leadership and our nation suffers.


----------



## Frog in Suit (Mar 27, 2007)

Well, if you think the USA inspired much respect under the previous administration, you may not have much sense of public opinion worldwide...

Frog in Suit


----------



## Beau (Oct 4, 2007)

Frog in Suit said:


> Well, if you think the USA inspired much respect under the previous administration, you may not have much sense of public opinion worldwide...
> 
> Frog in Suit


Well sir, we have stood in the line of fire in defense of many other nations since the late 1700's. The United States has been a symbol of power. Whether or not you respect us depends on the amount of freedom you desire or enjoy.

The world admires your beautiful city and contribution to gastronomy. Please tell me where your country has shown leadership on the world front in the past 70 years?


----------



## misterdonuts (Feb 15, 2008)

Q.E.D.
Bloody excellent!:icon_smile_big:


----------



## turban1 (May 29, 2008)

*"up to a point, Lord Copper..."*

i've worked in fifty or so countries, and am presently in afghanistan.

i think people long for america's material 'stuff' but lack the will or the capacity to create systems that permit that kind of wealth creation. meanwhile, because most americans stay at home and only meet foreign visitors or immigrants who came there by choice, most americans presume that the world wishes to be like them. this is certainly not always the case. american social problems, lack of community, and yes even decadence scare the daylights out of many.

having said that, most of the world aspires to the individual liberty and democratic rights pioneered by america but damaged severely in the past decade. detention without trial and torture, to name but two issues, make many wonder if america is going through a bad phase or was always hypocritical intentionally.

working with americans, i find them breathtakingly smug, even arrogant and surely uninquisitive as do my afghan and european friends and colleagues. an unintentional lack of manners and curiosity certainly diminishes their respect as individuals and their nation's prestige, power and effectiveness. i suppose the still admirable flip side of this is the american can-do attitude, but a smidgeon of listening skills would help to sell the national brand.

also, almost inevitably, when americans hear a criticism, they respond with some version of 'then s---w you, we meant well!'

to conclude, the reaction to america is mixed, and far less positive than it was in the post-war years. where i work, people are grateful for america's enormous generosity, and still in awe of its technical prowess, but nevertheless deeply worried about its substance beneath and where the future shall take them.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

"We had no idea that North Korea had this capability..."
I knew they were working on these missiles and they were openly testing intermediate range missiles for quite some time. I assume our government has heard of this also. In regard to nukes, it is fairly simple to build them - IF- the refined materials are available. That is the stumbling block for most smaller nuclear wannabes. Don't get too upset about it just yet. I am quite certain they would prefer to nuke a Republican President and Congress so I think they will not be doing much of anything any time soon.

"I don't feel safe. Our Constitution is almost worthless, much like our currency, and now puny regimes like North Korea and Iran rise up and flex their muscles. We will stand idly by and hope the UN does something. We are no longer the world's leader."

You should never have felt safe. Our peace and prosperity have never been a perpetual gift from God. There is always a new potential threat on the horizon but the names and locations change. Vigilance is our duty but we can do without needless muscle flexing. Understanding the threats allow us to take take small strategic steps to intercede instead of waiting until the enemy is on our doorstep and then shouting "nuke 'em" Our recent series of failed FBI inteligence, emergencies, poor response and blatant sellouts is a great example of how we failed to take proper small actions, were misguided in our response, and were sold out for fast profits under the cover of these so called emergency events. Be vigilant against both outside threats and internal corruption, but you will never be safe. That's life.

I really have to wonder about the continued attempts to belittle our current President as he tries to correct the results of the corrution and incompetence of our previous administration. It took quite a while to trash our system, so one would expect it will take a while to clean up the mess. As it stands none of the items listed are the fault of our current administration. The virtues listed were distant memories before most of us even heard of Obama. Bear in mind I am neither Democrat or Republican... but do share some ideals with each. I do like to give praise or lay blame were it belongs. I will give Obama and all of the current administration a chance. He can not do any worse than Bush and when he pulls us out of this mess, praise will be in order. Along the way he will screw up. He will still recieve bad intelligence if the FBI remains as it has been the past 8 years (actually longer) and the bad information and investigations will hamper him (this is just one example. Our govermment is overrun with dead weight people and that makes a big difference).

The bottom line is that we are not respected as we once were. We each have to blame ourselves for being complacent. Corruption, greed and incompetence are a part of our society. Our enemies know this and will exploit it. Our current administration did not create the current problems or their underlying causes but they have to deal with what we have now. It we want respect we need to help to restore it instead lamenting what once was.

Damn, I must have taken a wrong turn and ended up in the Interchange again ;-)


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

turban1 said:


> i've worked in fifty or so countries, and am presently in afghanistan.
> 
> i think people long for america's material 'stuff' but lack the will or the capacity to create systems that permit that kind of wealth creation. meanwhile, because most americans stay at home and only meet foreign visitors or immigrants who came there by choice, most americans presume that the world wishes to be like them. this is certainly not always the case. american social problems, lack of community, and yes even decadence scare the daylights out of many.
> 
> ...


A very well thought out and reasoned reply, but I'd like to address a few points.

First, as an American, I am constantly amazed at how well traveled many other Americans are. I traveled a good deal when I was young, but then stopped going overseas when the kids came. I lived and went to school in Sweden for a year and spent two years in Germany. My wife of 25 years is from Laos and most of our friends and relatives are Laotian. My older son spent a summer in France a couple years ago and my seventeen year old son is leaving next month to spend a month in France. I've literally been around the world but it doesn't seem that unusual here. Granted most travel on short vacations and don't have the chance to learn too much about the countries they visit, but that can't be unique to Americans. I also know a number of former missionaries to lesser developed countries that spent years living and raising their families overseas. Also, America still is a nation of immigrants and many of us are raised in homes where at least one parent is from another country and maintains the attitudes and customs of the home country. Could it be that many of the Americans you meet are simply too young to have the worldly experience you expect?

I don't think that most American's assume that the world wishes to be like us, we're just puzzled as to why the world doesn't.

As to manners, I will grant that many Americans do not have the best of manners. But I also remember that when I was in the military and we went to a foreign country we were required to take classes in what the local customs and manners were. I remember thinking that people in several European countries were incredibly rude, until I learned that that was just how they acted and there was no ill will meant. Have you taken the time to learn American manners? That un-inquisitiveness may be because they don't want to appear nosy. Many of us are raised to place great value on minding our own business.

America is a very large country that unfortunately most foreigners only learn about from our entertainment industry which is dominated by New York City and Southern California. Coastal California and the urban eastern corridor are not the typical America. Even visitors rarely get off the interstate highways and explore the country. You will find more decadence in places like Southern California, as you probably would in London, as compared to Cornwall. The vast majority of America, places like Texas or Wyoming or Alabama or West Virginia or Ohio, are much more conservative than just about anywhere in Europe and the many smaller communities have just as much a sense of community as anywhere else. The funny thing is, these are the very same places and people that are looked down on as ignorant yokels by those in places like Los Angeles and Europe, even though they may be just as well educated and have access to the same information sources as the rest of the developed world.

I personally find it difficult to take protestations about America's very limited and recent detention with out trial and "torture" serious when it comes from nations, and people, who do not similarly rail against the much more widespread and serious violations in countries such as Russia or just about any country in Africa, Asia or South America.

Its easy to generalize about any nationality, and many of your points may be valid. But it always seems to be more acceptable to generalize about Americans.

I remember my college roommate, a Pakistani who had also lived in England for some years, tell me that even when he disagreed with their policies he could respect and admire conservatives like Reagan because he felt that they had a value system more similar to his own. Those he most disliked were those with multi culti, I'm ok you're ok, its all valid/relative views.

To conclude, I get very tired of hearing Europeans lecture about how Americans need to become more sensitive to their mores when I suspect that they haven't made much effort to become sensitive to ours.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Those who bemoan how we are viewed in the world really make me laugh. What's more, I really wonder what planet they live on or how much they pay attention to the world around them. 

We're a convenient target for other governments. The "arrogant American foreign policy" line is a standard line used by politicians from other countries in need of a quick and cheap punchline. It has become the stock in trade of many a 3rd world dictator. It's the mother's milk of leftist European politics borne by years of social programs that have softened their people to the point where the fantasy of a world evolved beyond conflict has become cold comfort. 

Yet beneath the layers of contempt, no one around the world is looked to quite like we are in times of emergency. When an earthquake, a tsunami or other natural disaster occurs who is the first on the scene, and who does the rest of the world look to to lead the way? When a civil war in the Balkans broke out, who led the way while those with the most at stake stood by paralyzed because of a lack of strategic planning and 3rd rate military capabilities sacrificed so that new mothers could get paid a full year's salary by the state while raising their child. 

The brave new world that our president imagines is just that; imaginary. It is the vision of someone who lives in a world of ideas not grounded in reality. One needs only to listen to the rhetoric and the generalities contained within it to see this. His rhetoric lacks substance, because the rhetorician lacks substance. He's a man that went from a political Act I straight to Act III without the formative second act. His chief diplomat has had little experience on the world stage without a history of strategic thought or planning. Tackling a resurgent Russia is more difficult that pressing a red button. 

I'm afraid Wilson's legacy still lives today and it is unfortunate for us. The rest of the world plays by different rules, and if we continue to ignore this we will get more North Koreas, Venezuelas and Irans. The real arrogance of American foreign policy is the assumption that other states care about what we care about. Does anyone really think that Kim Jong Il cares about his people, or feeding them? Does anyone really think that the Mullahs who control Iran care about press freedoms or greater personal freedom for their citizenry. Does anyone think that Hugo Chavez cares about rule of law and a free political discourse?


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

I don't think most of the rest of the world realizes how powerful isolationism remains in grass roots America and how much poorer the rest of the world would be if it becomes ascendant. I haven't seen any recent polls but I would have to guess that if a popular referendum was held on the subject, we would be out of the U.N. immediately.

Do people really think we like putting our sons and daughters in harms way to fix problems that would harm other countries much more than our own?


----------



## obiwan (Feb 2, 2007)

Cut off all aid, bring our troops home, withdraw from the U.N. and stop paying it's bills, and stop being the world's police department, then see how quickly the tide would turn.


----------



## Beau (Oct 4, 2007)

norton said:


> I personally find it difficult to take protestations about America's very limited and recent detention with out trial and "torture" serious when it comes from nations, and people, who do not similarly rail against the much more widespread and serious violations in countries such as Russia or just about any country in Africa, Asia or South America.
> 
> To conclude, I get very tired of hearing Europeans lecture about how Americans need to become more sensitive to their mores when I suspect that they haven't made much effort to become sensitive to ours.


Very well said. Americans don't chop off the arms of their citizenry, run them down with tanks, nor do we enslave our own (unless you don't count those multi-generationally entrapped in the welfare system).


----------



## nick.mccann (May 3, 2009)

obiwan said:


> Cut off all aid, bring our troops home, withdraw from the U.N. and stop paying it's bills, and stop being the world's police department, then see how quickly the tide would turn.


I agree. After that we should try upholding the Constitution and reinstate the Free Market, we'd solve a lot of financial problems and we would be much wealthier in the future.


----------



## Nicesuit (Apr 5, 2007)

Country Irish said:


> "We had no idea that North Korea had this capability..."
> I knew they were working on these missiles and they were openly testing intermediate range missiles for quite some time. I assume our government has heard of this also. In regard to nukes, it is fairly simple to build them - IF- the refined materials are available. That is the stumbling block for most smaller nuclear wannabes. Don't get too upset about it just yet. I am quite certain they would prefer to nuke a Republican President and Congress so I think they will not be doing much of anything any time soon.
> 
> "I don't feel safe. Our Constitution is almost worthless, much like our currency, and now puny regimes like North Korea and Iran rise up and flex their muscles. We will stand idly by and hope the UN does something. We are no longer the world's leader."
> ...


Well, people are belittling the current President because he's doing a good job of taking what little was left that was working and stomping on it. And he's already doing MUCH WORSE than Bush in his first 3 months. Borrowing and printing trillions to pay for the debt and corruption of objects of benevolence is idiotic and a pointless exercise in fixing the economy.


----------



## turban1 (May 29, 2008)

*now here's an original thought!*



obiwan said:


> Cut off all aid, bring our troops home, withdraw from the U.N. and stop paying it's bills, and stop being the world's police department, then see how quickly the tide would turn.


Try that and America would be adored again, maybe in weeks, by everyone except the parasites.

Switzerland is armed to the teeth, but they don't spend the world's combined total for defense and they do not have their army based in more than 80+ countries as America does. They don't have embassies crowded with arrogant 25-year-olds berating the locals and ordering them about. They don't have young 3rd-world hotheads queuing up to bomb them. And they have enough happy customers.

Americans! Listen to General Geo. Washington and avoid foreign entanglements. Stop letting devious foreign powers trick you into sacrificing your children and your treasure unnecesarily. Let Coca-cola and modern medicines and great movies be your ambassadors instead of bureaucrats. Get rich or richer. Come back, guys.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

turban1 said:


> Try that and America would be adored again, maybe in weeks, by everyone except the parasites.
> 
> Switzerland is armed to the teeth, but they don't spend the world's combined total for defense and they do not have their army based in more than 80+ countries as America does. They don't have embassies crowded with arrogant 25-year-olds berating the locals and ordering them about. They don't have young 3rd-world hotheads queuing up to bomb them. And they have enough happy customers.


Frankly, I'm not that concerned about America being "adored".

Switzerland? Let's be serious..

And, in case you haven't noticed, there are many countries around the globe (not the least of which is England) that are regularly attacked (and/or plotted against) by radical Islamists.


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*I is shakin in my boots!*

Oh lawdy lawdy that librul president is surrenderin to the Commies! This am awful. I wish we had our War president back in his flight suit. He didn't take no guff from nobody. 
Hold on, them kids are on my lawn again...


----------



## Preu Pummel (Feb 5, 2008)

Beau said:


> Now that North Korea has tested its nuclear bomb and tested an ICBM, do you feel safer under our current president's leadership?


Well, once a couple hundred million people vanish in fire, collapsing economies and creating a large war, most people will understand how stupid this current administration is.

However, media propaganda has so influenced the world public through major news stations that most people will probably never understand how power works, how business works, what freedom means, or how to believe in anything other than hand fed opinion sponsored by entrenched political corruption.

...in other words, no. I hear from a lot of people in the world that they realize the savior from America is probably just a creepy tool without a backbone.


----------



## newtothis (Apr 13, 2009)

I don't know why it's our job to defend the border which separates North and South Korea when we don't even defend our own border with Mexico.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

The world quakes at the tread of...*Orsini!*


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

No, they respect us less than before. But maybe, just maybe, if we can hold out to 2012 and elect someone even weaker than Obama, someone who hates American even more than Obama, they will respect us then. Too bad Hugo Chavez is not eligible for the Democrat nomination....


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Respect was always a third way, a politically-correct triangulation that never addressed the call of the question. 

As rightly pointed out, whether we have it or not; the proposed resulting effects are not occurring.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

To paraphrase an old proverb:

Respect through superior firepower.


Add in consistent, principled actions and I think you have the only real recipe for earning respect in the world.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

+1.

To turn the question around, should we respect other nations? Maybe if they were a little less lazy and showed a little more backbone in dealing with their enemies, then they might get our respect. They certainly do not have mine.


----------



## newtothis (Apr 13, 2009)

it's too bad that special interest groups and lobbyist determine America's enemies rather than people who are actually a threat to us.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

I think that most Americans are quite good at comprehending who wants to be our friend and who means us harm. I am typing this response a quarter mile away from where construction is going on in this big hole in the ground in lower Manhattan.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

KenR said:


> I think that most Americans are quite good at comprehending who wants to be our friend and who means us harm. I am typing this response a quarter mile away from where construction is going on in this big hole in the ground in lower Manhattan.


I think that's generally true, although it's unfortunate that the last administration was able to trick a substantial segment of the population as to the responsibility for that hole in the ground.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

If the 911 tragedy was not caused by Al Qaeda, who caused it? Or (to try to be charitable) are you referring to something else that I am not seeing?


----------



## obiwan (Feb 2, 2007)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> If the 911 tragedy was not caused by Al Qaeda, who caused it? Or (to try to be charitable) are you referring to something else that I am not seeing?


Jack did it!

Or he is trying to beat that very dead horse that Bush himself was the mastermind behind the attack so he could wage war against Islam.

The big issue I have with that is, the left always claimed Bush was as dumb as a rock yet they wanted to pin responsibility for that attack on him?

Why don't you wake up Jack, the 60's have long since passed you by...


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

I think what Jack is trying to say that the president Bush used the context of the 9-11 attacks to invade Iraq. I have some disagreement with that theory. The invasion was part of an overall war against terror. I certainly do not think that Saddam was involved with 9-11 but he had plenty of opportunity to cooperate with the west afterwards, especially regarding the WMDs. He didn't and paid the price.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

obiwan said:


> Jack did it!
> 
> Or he is trying to beat that very dead horse that Bush himself was the mastermind behind the attack so he could wage war against Islam.
> 
> ...


Jack, my intention was not to lead into this particular rude post.

I intend to give you the benefit of the doubt. If you were referring to what Bush did to get us involved in Iraq, there is some room for discussion, I guess.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

newtothis said:


> it's too bad that special interest groups and lobbyist determine America's enemies rather than people who are actually a threat to us.


Just curious as to any specific group you may have in mind.


----------



## newtothis (Apr 13, 2009)

pt4u67 said:


> Just curious as to any specific group you may have in mind.


AIPAC.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> I think that's generally true, although it's unfortunate that the last administration was able to trick a substantial segment of the population as to the responsibility for that hole in the ground.


After this sort of statement, I want to start name-calling. Don't make me. Explain yourself.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> I think that's generally true, although it's unfortunate that the last administration was able to trick a substantial segment of the population as to the responsibility for that hole in the ground.


Folks were tricked?

Are you speaking of the United States Senate and House members (which included 111 Democrats members) who voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002?

Are those the folks you are speaking of?


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Relayer said:


> Folks were tricked?
> 
> Are you speaking of the United States Senate and House members (which included 111 Democrats members) who voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002?
> 
> Are those the folks you are speaking of?


Yes (me anyway). All of those people had the wool pulled over their eyes by one of the most corrupt governments ever to grace our once fair country. It's amazing how many people listened to the blatant lies and clear BS of the past administration.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

newtothis said:


> AIPAC.


Thank you. Would you care to expand on that. Could you please point to instances of influence that have resulted in distinct policy positions.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Relayer said:


> Folks were tricked?
> 
> Are you speaking of the United States Senate and House members (which included 111 Democrats members) who voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002?
> 
> Are those the folks you are speaking of?


Yes, they were lied to by the Bush Administration, including Colin Powell, who has at least subsequently acknowledged that the evidence he gave at the UN was false, although he has said that he did not know it was false at the time.

I am proud that my entire congressional delegation voted against Bush's illegal war of aggression against Iraq.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Jack, my intention was not to lead into this particular rude post.
> 
> I intend to give you the benefit of the doubt. If you were referring to what Bush did to get us involved in Iraq, there is some room for discussion, I guess.


I know, and I certainly don't tag you with anything like that. I'm specifically talking about Bush's fraudulent means of inducing Congress to agree to invade Iraq, augmented, as we now know, by torturing captives to try to force them to provide evidence proving that Iraq was behind the attacks.


----------



## nick.mccann (May 3, 2009)

KenR said:


> I think what Jack is trying to say that the president Bush used the context of the 9-11 attacks to invade Iraq. I have some disagreement with that theory. The invasion was part of an overall war against terror. I certainly do not think that Saddam was involved with 9-11 but he had plenty of opportunity to cooperate with the west afterwards, especially regarding the WMDs. He didn't and paid the price.


Bush did what every politician does, use one tragic event to further their political or personal goals. He used Americans fear to take away our freedoms, attack the Constitution and invade a country that was not a major threat.

Saddam paid the prices and so did millions of Iraqi's, hundreds of thousands of US soldiers and our economy. Have we not learned anything from history? Even Bush Sr. knew not to invade and occupy Iraq.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

nick.mccann said:


> Bush did what every politician does, use one tragic event to further their political or personal goals. He used Americans fear to take away our freedoms, attack the Constitution and invade a country that was not a major threat.
> 
> Saddam paid the prices and so did millions of Iraqi's, hundreds of thousands of US soldiers and our economy. Have we not learned anything from history? Even Bush Sr. knew not to invade and occupy Iraq.


You should become a screenwriter. I hear Oliver Stone is interested in producing you story.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> You should become a screenwriter. I hear Oliver Stone is interested in producing you story.


I don't think Oliver Stone is going to be interested. He prefers fiction.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

C'mon, Jack. If Oliver offers you $2 million for your bio, you know you'll take it!!


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Yes, they were lied to by the Bush Administration, including Colin Powell, who has at least subsequently acknowledged that the evidence he gave at the UN was false, although he has said that he did not know it was false at the time.
> 
> I am proud that my entire congressional delegation voted against Bush's illegal war of aggression against Iraq.


Of course, and the Bush administration also lied to Bill Clinton in 1998, prompting the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 which Clinton signed into law, then bombed Iraq for 4 days.

And of course, the evil genius Bush administration also convinced Bill Clinton in 1998 to give the following speech on national television.

*Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike*

_Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. _

The Bush administration reached into the past and convinced poor Clinton and the democrats that Iraq had WMD and would use them. All Bush's fault. Poor Gen Powell. All that intelligence, all those contacts, all that experience, yet, so easily lied to and "misled". Poor innocent 4-star general.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Relayer said:


> The Bush administration reached into the past and convinced poor Clinton and the democrats that Iraq had WMD and would use them. All Bush's fault. Poor Gen Powell. All that intelligence, all those contacts, all that experience, yet, so easily lied to and "misled". Poor innocent 4-star general.


Brilliant. I'll buy you a drink.


----------



## obiwan (Feb 2, 2007)

I wonder if there is a wager pool in Vegas someplace on the date the left wingnuts will stop blaming everything on Bush?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> C'mon, Jack. If Oliver offers you $2 million for your bio, you know you'll take it!!


I'm not sure I'd go see a movie of my life, but I'd take the check.


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

Yes (or else, we'll kick their ass).


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Relayer said:


> OfThe Bush administration reached into the past and convinced poor Clinton and the democrats that Iraq had WMD and would use them. All Bush's fault. Poor Gen Powell. All that intelligence, all those contacts, all that experience, yet, so easily lied to and "misled". Poor innocent 4-star general.


It is interesting how the Dems and the media keep changing their opinion of people. Bush is supposedly a complete idiot; yet also the mastermind of a brilliant deception. Powell is gullible and naive; yet the GOP should be following him. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Reagan, same old routine and some people never get tired of being snookered by it.

As for Iraq, the version I remember was this (and unlike Palin I can explain the Bush Doctrine): Saddam violated some number 16,17? of UN Sec Resolutions regarding WMD that had been previously verified. He had used WMD in the past. Post-911 the US could not tolerate a nation that would snub the UN over WMD because they could/would not be retrained by UN Sec Resolutions to contain WMD and prevent Terrorists from getting their hands on WMD; which was their stated goal via intelligence gathering sources.

Options: 1) Saddam complies and lets inspectors in to inspect WMD 2) Saddam complies by demonstrating he no longer has WMD 3) Saddam continues to snub the UN and the US

I have never heard anyone legitimately claim that Iraq was behind 9/11 except for Liberal Dems trying to attribute that to the Administration. I've heard far more nutcases claim WE were behind 9/11 than that Iraq was. What I heard was that 9/11 changed the way we had to view someone like Saddam that ignored the UN Sec. Resolutions because of the possibility they could pass that on to Terrorists.

It was a matter of means, motive, and opportunity. Did he have the means? Everyone agreed he did; including him Did he have the motive? Sure he did; he was already funding proxy operations against us in Lebanon and other places. 3) Did he have the opportunity? Sure; there were Al-Q like groups and agents milling through Iraq over which Saddam had complete, total, absolute control - telling us he knew they were there and approved of their operations in his country (meeting, training, even just recooperating).

It's kind of the crazy bastard (aka cool hand luke) test - Saddam failed. It turns out he was even crazier than we thought (he was bluffing). Pretty stupid of him in retrospect.

Claiming Bush intentionally schemed Powell, Congress, and the Nation is complete horse-crap IMHO.

I think it is reasonable to question the intelligence available; which I think Bush over-valued because GHWB had been director? at the CIA. I can imagine/picture W calling up the old man and saying "how much weight should I give this stuff? it seems pretty bad." and GHWB saying "you can trust the intelligence. those are professionals. blah blah blah." GHWB probably didn't understand the full damage of underfunding intelligence for eight years.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

I believe the CIA's problems go way beyond simply being underfunded. I have no support for this statement, other than their long history of intelligence failures and their inability to not leak.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

norton said:


> I believe the CIA's problems go way beyond simply being underfunded. I have no support for this statement, other than their long history of intelligence failures and their inability to not leak.


I've just started reading The Dark Side by Jane Mayer and even before you get into the torture and stuff like that, there is documentation of some pretty gross intelligence failures in the months before September, 2001.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

ksinc said:


> It is interesting how the Dems and the media keep changing their opinion of people. Bush is supposedly a complete idiot; yet also the mastermind of a brilliant deception. Powell is gullible and naive; yet the GOP should be following him. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Reagan, same old routine and some people never get tired of being snookered by it.
> 
> As for Iraq, the version I remember was this (and unlike Palin I can explain the Bush Doctrine): Saddam violated some number 16,17? of UN Sec Resolutions regarding WMD that had been previously verified. He had used WMD in the past. Post-911 the US could not tolerate a nation that would snub the UN over WMD because they could/would not be retrained by UN Sec Resolutions to contain WMD and prevent Terrorists from getting their hands on WMD; which was their stated goal via intelligence gathering sources.
> 
> ...


Well put.


----------



## nick.mccann (May 3, 2009)

pt4u67 said:


> You should become a screenwriter. I hear Oliver Stone is interested in producing you story.


It's not a conspiracy theory, I don't think Bush knew or caused 911, simply played upon it and used it. I used to be Bush's biggest fan, Mr. Republican but as I did my research and overlooked propaganda and looked for facts I realized how wrong Bush was/is.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

nick.mccann said:


> It's not a conspiracy theory, I don't think Bush knew or caused 911, simply played upon it and used it. I used to be Bush's biggest fan, Mr. Republican but as *I did my research and overlooked propaganda and looked for facts I realized how wrong Bush was/is.*


What a wonderful thing hindsight.

Of course what you took as facts then you see as propaganda. Why? because otherwise you could not come to the conclusion that you did. By labeling it propaganda you're able to let yourself of the hook and make the comments that you did. I suppose it is impossible for anyone other than the POTUS (whoever he/she may be) to know what it is like to make decisions of life and death knowing that the security of the country hangs in the balance. But what do I know, I'm just a propagandist.


----------



## nick.mccann (May 3, 2009)

pt4u67 said:


> What a wonderful thing hindsight.
> 
> Of course what you took as facts then you see as propaganda. Why? because otherwise you could not come to the conclusion that you did. By labeling it propaganda you're able to let yourself of the hook and make the comments that you did. I suppose it is impossible for anyone other than the POTUS (whoever he/she may be) to know what it is like to make decisions of life and death knowing that the security of the country hangs in the balance. But what do I know, I'm just a propagandist.


Simply open your mind to the truth and not what you want to hear, thats all I did. I started looking at things how they are not how I thought they should be, and as I matured I realized what Bush was and did. Bush is a betrayal to every conservative, he did the opposite of everything he said. I was young and stupid, I didn't realize til I got older and wiser that he was a Neo-Con, for massive government, against the free market and a war criminal.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

nick.mccann said:


> Simply open your mind to the truth and not what you want to hear, thats all I did. I started looking at things how they are not how I thought they should be, and as I matured I realized what Bush was and did. Bush is a betrayal to every conservative, he did the opposite of everything he said. I was young and stupid, I didn't realize til I got older and wiser that he was a Neo-Con, for massive government, against the free market and a war criminal.


Let's hope your new found wisdom doesn't fail you this time.


----------

