TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Bush's UN speech - reactions?

Bush's UN speech - reactions?

you can watch the whole video of the speech at www.whitehouse.gov

he talked about the war on terror, the good that has happened in iraq, and the current resolution they are trying to pass, a bit about the palestinian and israeli conflict, world aid agianst desieses and starvation...

I think the speech is long, the best part is near the end.

I especially liked Bush's ending statment "God Bless you all" directed at all the nations of the UN.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus I think the speech is long, the best part is near the end. I especially liked Bush's ending statment "God Bless you all" directed at all the nations of the UN.

What did you like about it?

The UN reaction was pretty blunt.

quote:

UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 23 -- President Bush got an earful of complaints from world leaders today but responded with a mild defense of his actions in Iraq and an understated request for U.N. help. [...] U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, in an unusually impassioned and sharp condemnation of U.S. policy, said "unilateralism" was an assault on the "collective action" envisioned by the late president Franklin D. Roosevelt and the other U.N. founders. "This logic represents a fundamental challenge to the principles on which, however imperfectly, world peace and stability have rested for the last 58 years," the secretary general said. "My concern is that, if it were to be adopted, it could set precedents that resulted in a proliferation of the unilateral and lawless use of force, with or without justification." Annan, who took the rare step of beginning his address in French rather than English, warned: "Excellencies, we have come to a fork in the road. This may be a moment no less decisive than 1945 itself, when the United Nations was founded." French President Jacques Chirac, speaking shortly after Bush, called the war "one of the gravest trials" in U.N. history and said it "undermined the multilateral system." In an extended critique of Bush's policy of preemptively attacking emerging threats, Chirac said: "In an open world, no one can live in isolation, no one can act alone in the name of all, and no one can accept the anarchy of a society without rules. There is no alternative to the United Nations."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2003Sep23.html

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus I think the speech is long, the best part is near the end. I especially liked Bush's ending statment "God Bless you all" directed at all the nations of the UN.

God Bless America.. its like an american slogan... MmMmmMMmmmm Saddam uses the doctrine and God all the time, and that never got no ones attention?

- I didnt get to hear the speach, but what I was able to capture is how his rate as president is dropping super-qick, in less then 1 month, it dropped 9%.. now almost everything is about how it was at teh beginning of his presidency. 50%, 50% and 50% there..

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus I especially liked Bush's ending statment "God Bless you all" directed at all the nations of the UN.

he probably said this in the most sardonic manner. Like "god bless you all, cause i'm right, you're wrong and you're going to hell."

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka What did you like about it?

I like the fact that it summed up its speech. People precieve him as "God bless America", and his speech was in summary "America gives a fcuk(tm) about the rest of the world" hence "God Bless you all" emphasizes this point, that he cares about the whole world not just America...

And that bastard Kofi Annan.. sucking up to the French and their lousy position by opening in French, if I didn't know better I'd say the French payed him to do that too!

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus I like the fact that it summed up its speech. People precieve him as "God bless America", and his speech was in summary "America gives a fcuk(tm) about the rest of the world" hence "God Bless you all" emphasizes this point, that he cares about the whole world not just America... And that bastard Kofi Annan.. sucking up to the French and their lousy position by opening in French, if I didn't know better I'd say the French payed him to do that too!

Did you say he cares about the world?? or atleast.. believe that?!?!?! LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOl thats the funniest things Ive heard in a long time man.. nice one man, will surely make a day to all my friends. Nice one

I think that Feinstein said it best!

"There is nothing new, except more propaganda, more rhetoric, more 'moralizing' -- because I don't think these policies are moral."

Lee Feinstein, Washington director of the Council on Foreign Relations

Score one for CNN. Maybe Turner read my post from yesterday? j/k

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/09/23/sp...t.un/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast...reut/index.html

why should i care about the UN, bush said they are worthless ...oh you tell me bush went back?!? WTF

http://c-span.org/

I did like chirac's speech though

Only polite applause at the end, and virtually none through thes speech....

on the other hand, way to go Kofi, sticking it to the admin

quote:

Originally posted by rizen why should i care about the UN, bush said they are worthless ...oh you tell me bush went back?!? WTF http://c-span.org/ I did like chirac's speech though

They are worthless! But that's a different argument altogether

/resident un hater

Ok.. just saw the speech.. what can I say, the same repetitive crap.. I dont understand how the UN countries dont piss fire at Bush, after he made the biggest damage to this institution, and now he wants their money, and troops.. for something that the US said was going to take charge of.. disobeying the UN.. I live in the US, but really.. when countries do stuff like that, shouldnt they be punished someway?!?! I know US wont be.. but if other country would've done the samething, they would've sanction their life. Back to the point.... like I said, nothing new.. nothing new from all the other speeches also. Bleeh.. and now the german president talked with bush.. and supposedly they are tours a good re-build of relations.

interesting analysis vesa

however i dont think the Neo-Con plan is imperialism in the sense we've knowen it from the 18th to 20th century, where they control and dictate the affiars of other countries. i think they want to advance the world hemegony not so much in the sense that we should all be the same but where they are all free to be distinict yet compatiable. i belive they are trying to bring some nations (mostly in the mid-east) out of the third world and premitive government, and bring them into the modern world where they can function together with all the other big nations (US, Canada, EU, Russia, Brazil... etc). not so much where the US is the leader, but where all the countries can prosper together. as to quote you - yes, bush actually cares about the world.

furthermore, if one belives in a totalitarian moral, just like the basics right of freedom, liberty and all the rest, then why go agianst this? what would be wrong with US trying to spread these un-alienable rights to all mankind? wasn't that the whole point of the Locke, Jefferson and the revolutions at the time?

Umm Vesa, you know best Bush an't a Neo-con.. his buddies are.

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa Soon you'll have imperial troops around the world, need to recruit from other countries, upsetting them, and leading to more need for imperial troops.

Vesa, I am your father.


hehe sorry i couldnt resist thinking about star wars when you said that

anyways, nice post, ill see if i can get around to commenting on it a little bit later

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa the invasion was an aggressive action, not a defensive reaction.

that all depends where you're sitting. the thing is...ppl in Tel-Aviv have one less thing to worry about u kno. what's wrong with unseating a murderer in a position to harm the masses? even if Bush's rationale was a stretch (the whole selling weapons to terror thing) it was still something in the back of peoples minds. it was still something that had a percentage of happening. I think that dismantaling that regime was one of the only good things Bush has done. It is not ironic in the least that Clark is releasing those passages right now. Even if the invasion plans did exist...there's no chance that even a republican president would go that far. I mean think about it. SEVEN countries. That's pretty much building an empire. I mean New York is present day Rome but FUCK it just wouldn't fly.

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa Because of Rightist Realism, you can now do anything in the US, and the world can take it. Even in any fantasy scenario like Fascists hijacking US, a Rightist Realist world would not turn into anything worse than a new Cold War. But Fascists hijacking a Neocon Empire would turn it into a Fascist Empire overnight. Rightist Realism is inherently more robust than Neoconservatism, and allows a moderate degree of liberty at much less risk.

i got some time to finally get back to you... i'm always intregued by your analysis of the neo-cons

anyways, could you do me a favor of defining rightist realism and how it is similar/different from neo-conservatism. the reason i ask is because my opinion is that neo-cons are realists at heart. it was even what Pearl (i think) said to descride neo-con-ism ("liberals who have been smacked with reality").

next i think it is a condtradiction for you to say that neo-con-ism stands a stronger chance of turning fascist overnight. Because neo-cons are very strong on their moral beliefs i belive such a case is most likely not to happen under their authority. they, first and foremost, value freedom, liberty and in all honesty capitalism so i cant really see a chance where they would tolerate anything but that rising up through their ranks.

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa An ideological American Empire is indeed Neocons' goal even if it's hard to believe that Bush's top guys could support such a megalomaniac plan. But remember that they used to be just political advisers with very limited power before Bush. During Clinton, they must have thought that none of their imperialist plans would ever be implemented, so they let their imagination run free, and dreamed up their favourite utopy. They were paid to think up new political solutions, instead of analyzing whether they could be realistically carried out.

What you have to understand (excuse the tone I'm using at the beginning here) is that the DOD has contingencies for every possible situation that might possibly exist. I wouldn't be surprised if there actually existed a plan that called for the invasion of China or even Monaco. As you basically said yourself, this is what war experts with a lot of free time have to do all day. Just because these people created an imaginary "utopia" as you call it, doesn't mean that they actually think that any of those plans will ever be implemented. I am positive they even had an abort planned in Iraq in case they learned at the last minute that there was a nuke pointed at Tel-Aviv with 20 decoys ready to boogie. This leaves us with what? A book about some plans being released to strategically coincide with the UN plea that everyone knew was going to be Bush's lowest point yet in his surprisingly popular presidency (to Americans not the world). Don't get me wrong, I hope that Bush loses next year and the economy rebounds, but you have to admit, it is all pretty transparent.

And in the end, there is a bottom line, even with Bush. A war on seven nations will never be carried out. Unless it's WWIII.

Blame his fucking greedy tax cuts and his stupidity and the puppetry, but don't dog on Iraq. You have to admit, it had to be done one way or another. If a president came along who difused Saddam diplomatically that would have been great, but he's gone now, it's over, and it makes me sleep easier, and I'm sure a lot of people sleep easier just like me.

- Getting out of the kyoto treaty is/was the first sign of Bush caring about thw world ( before that he wanted to change foreign policy - how much did he care then .. ).. right..
It just upsets me when leaders like Bush dont really see this climate change. and still give free passes for companies with the lowest restrictions applied.... blah.. as long as he does all that stuff, for me, he aint caring about the world, but for the money interests involved..

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa Europeans are scared that Muslim outrage is going to target European countries who are the softest targets to use as scapegoats.

lol you don't think European countries would be just as at risk if not more so if a UN multilateral force invaded Iraq? It's funny that you say that Europeans are pessimistic about Iraq when polls show that two thirds of Iraqis are optimistic.

do Europeans know something that Iraqis don't? or maybe you guys kind of want Iraq to fall apart so that you can say you were right? I don't see a problem developing at all. Of course there will be terror inside Iraq, but I think it will be controlled. I also think that Syria is posing a HUUUUGE threat to its own people by letting all those organizations operate inside their borders. It is only a matter of time before the whole world comes down on terror 10 fold and the nations htat support it. Colin is trying his best with Syria but what are you really going to say to them aside from "stop supporting terror or we will destroy you?" In the end (im talking a long time from now) it will be the choices that are made in terror states that decide the fate of those countries.

the muslim world can get mad all they want but what are they really getting mad at? the fact that terror groups are getting wiped out? if these threats didn't exist in the first place there would be no reason for occupation.

just think of it this way...if the US supported (financially and physically) its own terror groups that would ocasionally blow up parts of Mexico City and asked for nothing less than the full destruction of Mexico...wouldn't you kind of want to put an end to that? or would you have discussions with them for 20 years while innocent people died?

"Although ancient states were great, they inevitably perished when they were fond of war" -- Sima Rangju

That the USA and its people were so easily led into the IRAQ war shows to the world that it is not strong but that it is weak.

The UNITED NATIONS was ironically the USA's best chance to ensure its continued supremacy and by alienating it and the member states it has ensured that they will not come rushing to bail it out of the IRAQ disaster which will end in yet another humiliating defeat for the USA.

No US controlled oil supply
No US puppet government in Iraq
No Middle-East peace deal favourable to Israel
No reduction in the level of fundamentalism
No making the world a safer place

quote:

Originally posted by rupert "Although ancient states were great, they inevitably perished when they were fond of war" -- Sima Rangju

this is modern day

quote:

No making the world a safer place

why not? you want it to be a deadlier place?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.