OT: State of the Union

[Barefoot In Kailua]

Pablo said:

And, if there is a case where the security of the country is actually threatened, I'd agree.

I didn't hear too many people complaining when we went after the Taliban and terrorists, but then, they were really a threat to the US.

The dig against Chirac is odd, in light of Bush's comment. Apparently, it's OK for the US to not have to ask permission to defend the security of our country, but we also get to be peeved if France doesn't assist us in defending the security of our country, despite the fact that France does not perceive a threat to themselves.

Lastly, given the lack of any WMDs and the lack of any imminent threat, the administration has now rested it's case more on humanitarian grounds, in that Saddam was a bad ruler and bad for the Iraqis. It's a nice case of revisionism, but even given it is true, does Bush really think we shouldn't have to gain international support for wiping out a government of another state for their own good?

The Taliban wasn't a direct threat to America. They were removed from power because they gave safe haven to and refused to surrender those responsible for the attacks on our Country.

As far as France is concerned, yes they didn't assist us, neither did the Germans but the French took delight in being an obstacle. They threatened to use their Veto and Lobbied other Countries not to support the American Objective. France had it's own selfish reasons to turn it's back on America. It had little to do with Humanitarian Ideolgy. Let's not forget the fact that France is free because of Great Britain and America.

Now the "revisionism" you speak of is rather unfortunate. The administration should stick to it's guns and go after the Syrians next.

[Psychopotamus]

Barefoot said:

Now "revisionism" you speak of is rather unfortunate. The administration should stick to it's guns and go after the Syrians next.

I say bomb the hell out of Canada. It's bad enough Quebec has French people, but they're right next door. Then we should go after Mexico. They all want to be American citizens, right? That will save them the trouble of trying to sneak in. Then all our cheaply made electronics can be made in the USA.

[Barefoot In Kailua]

Jar said:

Here's another thought, why are the Republicans so gung-ho about state's rights unless it's an issue they don't like? Now, Bush is talking about the need for a federal constitutional amendment to stop "activist judges" from allowing gay marriage. Regardless of how you feel about the issue, marriage has always been an issue in the jurisdiction of the states. States issue marriage licenses. States issue divorce certificates. States define the limits of marriage (i.e., whether second, third, fourth, etc. cousins can marry). So where does G. Freakin' Bush get off suddenly federalizing the issue of marriage?

What a hypocrite.

Federal Law superceeds State Law. I'm guessing he doesn't want the voice of a couple of States to speak for the entire Union. I'm not as passionate about this particualr issue as the good President, but I like Bush.

[Deleted]

Any truth to the rumor the Mars Rover has found WMD on Mars?

Has to be some reason why GW wants to go there.

[IdahoBoy]

Bete said:

Any truth to the rumor the Mars Rover has found WMD on Mars?

Has to be some reason why GW wants to go there.

Weapons for Mars Destruction?

[Barefoot In Kailua]

[quote author=IdahoBoy® [Pomaika'i] link=board=general&thread=1074702713&start=19#1 date=1074710858]

Weapons for Mars Destruction?
[/quote]

Lol!

[7thWoman]

Barefoot explained how France stood in our way and I thought I had too.

I really don't know why the Bush adminisration decided to us WMD as their reason and neither do you. Maybe they actually thought there were WMD. Maybe there are. How much time should we have given the UN weapons inspectors to take the guided tour of Iraq?

One of the things anti-Bush folk like to say about him is that he is a cowboy. I personally have a hard time seeing how that is a bad thing, living in California which was colonized for me by the cowboys, so I don't particularly care if they call him a cowboy. But if he is a cowboy, then these people ought to understand that one of the things cowboys are famous for is exploration. I think that's a pretty good reason to go to Mars. It will be another "giant leap for mankind." It will satisfy our curiosity and probably result in new technology.

[The Bofa on the Sofa]

Bete said:

Any truth to the rumor the Mars Rover has found WMD on Mars?

Has to be some reason why GW wants to go there.

The Mars Rover has NOT found WMD on Mars. But it did uncover evidence for a WMD program, including the presence of uranium. They also have intelligence reports that Mars has tried to purchase uranium from Uranus.

[Laulena14]

What I didn't hear was who is his favorite volleyball team??

[The Bofa on the Sofa]

7thWoman said:

Barefoot explained how France stood in our way and I thought I had too.

And I still don't get it.

If we don't need permission to attack, then France could rally the whole world against participating and it wouldn't matter.

France stood in the way of us dragging the rest of the world with us. Heck, they probably even lobbied against UN support of the attack. So what? All that means is that we have to do it alone. But if we don't have a case that convince the rest of the world, then why shouldn't we expect to do it alone?

[IdahoBoy]

Pablo said:

The Mars Rover has NOT found WMD on Mars. But it did uncover evidence for a WMD program, including the presence of uranium. They also have intelligence reports that Mars has tried to purchase uranium from Uranus.

Aren't "Men from Mars?" Doesn't that make sense that only intelligent reports would come back?

You don't see the men in charge of NASA trying to probe Venus (Women are from there, right?). Hmmm. Now I know why my NASA application was denied.

[StanfordFan]

Barefoot said:

Federal Law superceeds State Law. I'm guessing he doesn't want the voice of a couple of States to speak for the entire Union. I'm not as passionate about this particualr issue as the good President, but I like Bush.

That really isn't a response. The fact of the matter is, the Republican Party's guiding principle has been states' rights and de-federalization. Except when it comes to an issue where Bush needs to pander to the religious right.

Marriage has always been a state issue. There is no concern about a few states speaking for the entire nation because the federal Defense of Marriage Act already prevents national recognition of gay relationships entered into any particular state. What Bush proposes is a federal constitutional amendment that will prevent individual states from defining the nature of relationships that apply in that state.

You may like Bush, but you still have to be able to justify his policies, and this one is purely hypocritical.

[Barefoot In Kailua]

Pablo said:

And I still don't get it.

If we don't need permission to attack, then France could rally the whole world against participating and it wouldn't matter.

France stood in the way of us dragging the rest of the world with us. Heck, they probably even lobbied against UN support of the attack. So what? All that means is that we have to do it alone. But if we don't have a case that convince the rest of the world, then why shouldn't we expect to do it alone?

It didn't matter. I think The Administration already made up it's mind. I think they went to the UN to "seal the deal". The French gambled on the Bush Administration not going into Iraq without UN approval. That is why they lobbied the UN against the resolution and why they threatened to use their Veto. It was a high stakes game of chicken. Chirac used the situation to try and strengthen Frances' influence not only within the EU but in the World while trying to lessen American influence and authority. It's no secret that he wants to create a European counterweight to the US. France gambled and lost. A gamble that will most certainly hurt the French in the future. I'm sure the French were suprised the Americans acted inspite of the dissention within the World Debating Society.

[7thWoman]

Pablo said:

And I still don't get it.

If we don't need permission to attack, then France could rally the whole world against participating and it wouldn't matter.

France stood in the way of us dragging the rest of the world with us. Heck, they probably even lobbied against UN support of the attack. So what? All that means is that we have to do it alone. But if we don't have a case that convince the rest of the world, then why shouldn't we expect to do it alone?

By declaring they were going to use their veto, they were nullifying the vote. Like I said, it would be nice to have the support, but it is not, and was not, necessary.

Who exactly do you mean when you say the rest of the world anyway? If I'm not mistaken, the number of coalition countries participating in this operation was twenty-something, including Great Britain and Spain. Whose permission do we need?

[Barefoot In Kailua]

Jar said:

You may like Bush, but you still have to be able to justify his policies, and this one is purely hypocritical.

What Bush are you talking about?

Actually I don't have to justify his policies, especially those that I'm in disagreement with. As noted in my response to you, I said I "assume". It seems like you are more versed on the matter than I.

I always thought Hypocrisy was a perk of the executive seat.