State of the Union...are you worried ?

[baxter]

Did I miss something?

I know it’s no longer the done thing to quote news sources in this section but did I just miss something?

I know a lot of people on this forum are American, but I just watched Bushs “Sate of the Union “Address.

Are you guys comfortable with this?

Don’t slang me, but I’m sorry guys this makes me feel somewhat nervous.

Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons

It costs a lot to fight this war. We have spent more than a billion dollars a month -- over $30 million a day -- and we must be prepared for future operations. Afghanistan proved that expensive precision weapons defeat the enemy and spare innocent lives, and we need more of them.

Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun

Is it just me or am I the only one that is somewhat uneasy by these words ?

 

[CptStern]

no, I've been saying this since about 1998-99 (although it is odd that he would regurgitate the same "america is in danger" bullshit so soon after iraq was exposed to be a sham) ..I've also predicted that when the US does march into iran the majority of americans will support it

 

[clarky003]

I agree with stern.

I know it’s no longer the done thing to quote news sources in this section

you cheeky bugger

Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun

If those are his words *slaps forehead* less war mongering more english lessons.

 

[el Chi]

Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun

Is it just me or am I the only one that is somewhat uneasy by these words ?

Definitely, and not just because it barely makes any sense, as a sentence.

The "War on Terror" is a complete fallacy, a euphemism for crusades against "disagreeable" nations. An excuse to pass shocking laws curtailing freedom, ironically in the name of freedom.

A few months ago, Rice claimed that the US had no plans to invade Iran. Why bother lying? Seriously, what's the point?
"Nah we're not going to Iran. Oh wait, sorry, I was completely feeding you complete and utter lies and I have no desire whatsoever to fulfill any promises I have made to you, ever."

If Blair goes along with any kind of invasiojn of Iran... I don't actually know how to finish that sentence. It'd just be so depressing. I'm not a vehement nationalist, but I'm buggered if I'm going to see the UK be the US's bitch ONCE MORE. It's so depressing.
Here's my fingers crossed for an EU superstate.

Or for me marrying that girl off the Renault ads or Audrey Tautou and seceding to France to live in Paris, devoting ludicrous amounts of time to eating glorious food, having wonderfully hedonistic sex and drinking lots of fabulous wine until I die early in a huge vat of my own vice, whilst malenting my British roots, and all because of that retard Tony Blair.
On second thoughts, I want that anyway; invasion of Iran or no.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

It was said at the start of combat operations that this war wasn't going to be over anytime soon. There isn't a soveirgn entity that can declare surrender on the deck of a battleship, it's crushing the fundamentalist Wahabis militarily and culturally.

 

[Javert]

switchgraaaaaaaaaaaaaass!

 

[M1CH43L]

well technically, he didn't write the speeches but you know that. I'm sure that the speechwriter got some crap after how he set up the failure of Bush's bill to pass. The thing im seriously worried about isn't his terrorism agenda, or his relationships with other nations, but Social Security. Thats where me (and other Americans) lie uneasy. I am confident in the U.S.'s ability to handle this war, yet how we handle the expenses of everything truly is frightening. By 2030 60% of the expendtures will be allocated for Social Security only. That is truly worrying. What about everything else? Education, reform, govt fundings and all that. The deficit (a period of time, a period of debt, say months, not overall debt) alone is around 500 billion (due to unexpected events such as hurrican Katrina and 9/11)! However on the war, agree with me or not, i believe that America will diminish its enemy (you can never destroy evil) to the point it so desires. And when it comes to foreign revenue, that has to be paid. Want to see what a considerable interest rate has on a large amount. Enter if you dare - http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ However i support the President on his moral stances, and i can guarantee you that was the initial reason why he has become the President. However Kerry was a poor canidate, very poor, in my opinion. Anyways, no one wants to take a President from a war he initiated. If the democrats did not have such immoral stances, then they would have had a better chance. Even though some could say Bush is closer to the moderate middle, to have to choose between democrats and republicans is black and white. Gays, lesbians, gun control, stem cell research, cloning, abortion, and foreign policy are want really got him through, and you better believed i supported him. Also, seriously, just because he messes up phrases doesn't mean shit as far as being an intellectual leader (except he did throw up on the prime minister of japan ). I know the smartest, most modest people, that dont have to stoop to sentence structure and fluency to prove they are not some vacuous being.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

well technically, he didn't write the speeches but you know that. I'm sure that the speechwriter got some crap after how he set up the failure of Bush's bill to pass. The thing im seriously worried about isn't his terrorism agenda, or his relationships with other nations, but Social Security. Thats where me (and other Americans) lie uneasy. I am confident in the U.S.'s ability to handle this war, yet how we handle the expenses of everything truly is frightening. By 2030 60% of the expendtures will be allocated for Social Security only. That is truly worrying. What about everything else? Education, reform, govt fundings and all that. The deficit (a period of time, a period of debt, say months, not overall debt) alone is around 500 billion! However on the war, agree with me or not, i believe that America will diminish its enemy (you can never destroy evil) to the point it so desires. Yet money, well thats an issue, especially when it comes to foreign revenue, that has to be paid. Want to see what a considerable interest rate has on a large amount. Enter if you dare - http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Big time. I simply cannot understand the logic the liberals had in shooting down the social security proposals. It makes no sense. Why they seem to refuse to leave a sinking ship I will never understand.

 

[dream431ca]

I watched some of it...I'm Canadian and I would like to know what our neighbours are planning...and it looks scary....but I found it funny that the democrates rarely stood up after Bush's comments. I guess there pretty pissed.

 

[NotATool]

I doubt any more wars within Bush's presidency will be backed by anyone. So no, not significantly.

 

[Pajari]

I doubt any more wars within Bush's presidency will be backed by anyone. So no, not significantly.

I'd rather not wait for Iran to gain nukes, personally. We shouldn't have screwed up 30 years ago by re-instating the Shah, but we've got to do something now or one of the most oppressive and ridiculously fanatic regimes on Earth will have a huge bargaining chip. Hello caliphate!

As for the address, politics as usual. I don't like Bush's handling (or mishandling) of the budget a single bit, and the Republicans should be ashamed for indulging in the typical earmark/special favor/entitlement plundering of our nation's treasury. I don't like the fact that our taxes still haven't been reformed and that our schools have been saddled with ridiculous restrictions like No Child Left Behind.

I do respect him for taking care of the Taliban and Saddam, though. We need a lot more of that type of thinking in the White House. We should have gone into Sudan too, but you have to pick your battles, especially with how stretched our military is.

 

[Lemonking]

I hope Iran and Israel slit eachothers throats.... but since Israel is like glue for the US,there is no way the US wont get envolved.

 

[gick]

A few months ago, Rice claimed that the US had no plans to invade Iran. Why bother lying? Seriously, what's the point?
"Nah we're not going to Iran. Oh wait, sorry, I was completely feeding you complete and utter lies and I have no desire whatsoever to fulfill any promises I have made to you, ever."

If Blair goes along with any kind of invasiojn of Iran... I don't actually know how to finish that sentence. It'd just be so depressing. I'm not a vehement nationalist, but I'm buggered if I'm going to see the UK be the US's bitch ONCE MORE. It's so depressing.

Not going to happen. Iran is a huge country with a large population and a big army. The UK certainly doesnt have the ability to invade and occupy the country, as our its military is already stretched thin in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US could probably handle an invasion given some time to prepare, but there is no way in hell that they'd be able to occupy the place without huge casualties. Remember, Iranians are a lot more fond of their government than the Iraqis were, and look whats happening there.

What I can see happening is coalition/Israeli airstrikes.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Yaaaaaaay.

 

[VictimOfScience]

I love how Bush also said that the US must rely less on foreign energy sources.

From Stratfor's latest Public Policy Intelligence Report:

The sentiment certainly is not new. The basic argument is decades old, and since 2004, a growing coalition of foreign policy experts, environmentalists and technology entrepreneurs have been warning specifically about the geopolitical effects of U.S. reliance on foreign oil. They advocate "energy independence" as a critical strategy for the United States. What is interesting about the State of the Union speech is not so much that Bush would touch on this issue, but the way in which it was done: By adopting the goal of reducing reliance on foreign energy supplies, the president acknowledged the central argument of a growing coalition of interest groups that are working against his energy programs -- yet without embracing their slate of proposed remedies. In this way, Bush appears poised to neutralize the potency of some opposition arguments and isolate certain components of the energy security coalition.

In his national address, Bush said the answer to energy security concerns lies in technology. He neither called for increased domestic oil exploration -- a potentially touchy subject -- nor conservation. What he did say was largely unobjectionable to those who are naturally predisposed to stand in his way on energy matters. It was a "Nixon going to China" moment, and the immediate reaction from Bush's most likely critics -- liberal activist groups, environmentalists -- has been either silence or expressions of suspicion as to whether he is serious.

I am among those who is not sure what he is trying to do here. Many of these "remedies" go against current policy, so how is this all going to work? I'd love to see his plan because it (if he is indeed serous) is going to have to involve one of the methods he avoided in his speech: domestic oil exploration or conservation. Should be interesting to see where this one goes...

On another subject, its hard to say who would support the war on Iran, if indeed it came to that. The recent poll for the BBC shows that the majority of the world sees Iran as having the largest negative influence. Before the Iraq War, I doubt many people saw Iraq in the same light, so the situation is quite different. Still, the US would be fairly foolish to try to manage another front over there with current troop levels around the world being what they are. Still, who knows what else they are capable of!

 

[clarky003]

I happen to think frequent inspections are good enough to make sure they only use Uranium for nuclear power plant's.

The main reason the US are pissed is not the thought that Iran could develop nukes secretly somehow, but the fact that by going nuclear and switching to the euro they undermine the petrodollar which give the US economy the majoritity of its strength, and if they totally switch currencey like saddam had done before the war of course they are going to be extra peeved. Its conflict in economical interest more than anything else, not really enough to justify a war morally.

'Terrorisim this and fear the nukes that' is blown way out of propaution and most likely used to smokescreen the core reason for the confliction, and because it relates to our saftey it plays on our fears and literally scares most of us into supporting an otherwise unjust core reason.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Then again...

"Eradicate Israel!"

 

[Lemonking]

maybe, he means Vagina Warfare :O

 

[gh0st]

how could you not feel worried when you listen to george bush speak, its embarassing even for me. the state of the union is pitiful in many ways, i'm not sure why or how he is using this upbeat political message, its just condescending.

 

[satch919]

how could you not feel worried when you listen to george bush speak, its embarassing even for me. the state of the union is pitiful in many ways, i'm not sure why or how he is using this upbeat political message, its just condescending.

I agree with you there. Whenever he speakes it's like he's talking down to the people. He has an arrogant personality that I just can't stand.