Dubya & the UN
Sep 13, 2002
Watching George W. Bush address the UN in his speech yesterday I was very glad to not hear any senseless babbling about the "freedom-loving world" -- the ludicrous insinuation that terrorists are driven by nothing more complex than a blind, unreasoning rage against freedom.
Instead he made a convincing speech, urging the UN and the Security Council to enforce their security resolutions. George W. Bush claimed that Iraq had promised to comply with every resolution, but has betrayed that promise each time.
"Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding or will it be irrelevant?", he asks.
Unfortunately, the speech itself was of no political consequence. President Bush laid out a number of arguments for attacking Iraq and wrapped it up by stating that wether the UN supports the US in this or not, it does not matter, they will attack as they see fit, either way.
The speech, in my point of view, was merely a show. The president didn't come before the UN general assembly to discuss -- to have a dialogue, but to tell them that the US will attack Iraq and the UN should support that.
First, we don't know that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, we don't. We do however know that Israel has. But let's not talk about that, right?
Second, the description of Iraq could match a number of other countries, is he going to wage war against them all?
Comments
President Bush addressing the U.N. General Assembly This morning, the day after the one year memorial of the September 11 tragedy, President Bush issued a statement in front of
Trackback from wired at UCLA at 18:26, 13 Sep, 2002 #
My thoughts exactly. How many countries do we have to destroy before ALL WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION are gone? If terrorists want them bad enough sooner or later they will find some.
I think that phrase is so funny, weapons of mass destruction, if you haven't, read
http://www.onion.com/onion3833/bush_wont_stop_asking.html
Comment by Doug at 19:05, 13 Sep, 2002 #
What exactly is your position on this matter anyway? Either I missed your point entirely, or are you really suggesting Israel and Iraq are alike? That Saddam does not have weap. of m.d. and is not a threat to the free world?
Comment by Teekay at 20:25, 15 Sep, 2002 #
My position is that one can not, should not, must not, wage war on a hunch.
There is no proof that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, there is none. That Bush keeps repeating that they do does not make it more true, even though more and more people believe him each time he makes the claim .
Comment by Tomas at 21:06, 15 Sep, 2002 #
Unless you are Saddam's agent, you must have read some stories that show Saddam is a very, very bad guy. He's done some very ugly things to his own people AND his neighbors. US would not waste $200bn just to make Bush look cool.
Comment by Teekay at 20:50, 16 Sep, 2002 #
Tell me, what stories have you read?
Furthermore, I think Bush would go to great lengths to continue his war on terror. What is Bush without it, really?
Comment by Tomas at 22:01, 16 Sep, 2002 #
Hi...
Good argument guys..
Just to add some points; who created the monster Saddam anyway... Uncle Sam of course. Check this out: http://www.msnbc.com/news/807688.asp
The next question will be, who created Israel?
Uncle Sam is playing Dr. Frankenstein, creating a monster and the destroy it... come to think of it, its more like Jeckyl & Hyde :)
Comment by KaZ at 18:44, 17 Sep, 2002 #
.. without the war, Bush would return to the chimpanzee section in Washington ZOO ;))
No, nobody wants to find the ultimate proof in mushroom cloud over some major city... CNN archives & Google queries uncover some very interesting stories for which there is little place here
Comment by Teekay at 19:40, 17 Sep, 2002 #
The discussion has been closed on this entry. Thanks to everybody who participated.