State of the Union Address

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-28 13:41:40

Any thoughts or expectations about the SotU address tonight? I know there's been a lot of talk around here about possibly starting funding of the nuclear rocket, but the issue of war in Iraq is important as well.

Let it loose, y'all... (you all)

soph · 2003-01-28 13:49:53

We really shouldnt be pushing for a war on Iraq now. I don't see any reason why we can't give the inspectors until March for more results. Then, if we find something big, it justifies our cause. But now? We have a few empty shells.

I hope he announces Prometheus, but I kind of don't. If the war generates negative response, I am afraid any other issues will as well. Oh well, we'll just have to see.

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-28 13:58:11

Who says he won't wait until March? It really puts the squeeze on Europe if we turn the other cheek and let the inspections continue. I hope he discloses some heavy military intelligence tonight to seal Iraq's coffin.

soph · 2003-01-28 13:59:46

right after he explains why we are letting north korea slip and giving them financial aid, when they openly defied the world, stepped out of a treaty, and started nuclear weapons production.

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-28 14:07:43

I can't read the President's mind there. If I had been in the White House when they pulled out of the nuclear treaty, I would have launched a thermonuclear weapon at every city in North Korea within the hour and evacuated our troops from the DMZ.

clark · 2003-01-28 15:14:03

Who says he won't wait until March?

Reality. The troops wil be in place mid Feb. Look for an announcement of hostilities about then.

I hope he discloses some heavy military intelligence tonight to seal Iraq's coffin.

He will reveal nothing new. Colin Powell will more than likely reveal the "damning" evidence at the UN. Bush will make a seperate speech regarding Iraq when it is time to begin the war.

right after he explains why we are letting north korea slip and giving them financial aid, when they openly defied the world, stepped out of a treaty, and started nuclear weapons production.

Becuase North Korea is a different problem. It has the potential to get really ugly. If this is not handled correctly, it could lead to a destablization of the entire region due to a nuclear arms race.

And Cal, if we tried doing as you sugegst, all of South Korea and Japan would go up in flames as well. You would end up killing millions of people from the reprisal, not to mention the environmental consequences from thermonuclear war.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-28 21:09:57

Seems like you were wrong clark. He seemed to have used the whole SOTU to talk about Iraq.

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-28 21:16:08

HA HA HA Soph!!! You want to call Bush an oil whore now? How about that $1.2 billion for hydrogen cell research!?

Oooh... I got all excited. Nothing on Prometheus, though. He sure revealed some smoking guns about Iraq, but he left the blunt end up to Colin Powell on Feb. 5.

soph · 2003-01-28 21:29:09

Yeah, he did do well in addressing the concerns about oil and iraq.

but no prometheus, too much religious banter.

yes, it was a good speech, but it was a bit overloaded with weapons and light on much else. taxes and weapons. the power part and the fuel cell part were good, and iraq, ill give you that.

he should stop using "evil" "god" and "soul" in his speeches. foreign leaders hate that.

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-28 21:36:37

he should stop using "evil" "god" and "soul" in his speeches. foreign leaders hate that.

I don't know if you've noticed, soph, but the President and the average American don't give a damn about the opinions of the international community. Those words really apeal to the "heartland" Americans. (Read my new quote below... that was one of my favorite parts!)

He did a good job reaching out to the concerns of the left while remaining in touch with the right wing base. I said it in the other forum, but I'm sure Prometheus will turn up again. He'll probably fund it anyway, and then use the prospect of a ready-and-waiting Mars mission after its development a little further down the road.

soph · 2003-01-28 21:38:43

thats a problem. we should care about the international community, and the president not caring only reinforces the problem.

our lack of caring for other countries has been partially responsible, along with jealousy, for international hatred of america, and even to an extent, terrorism. im not condoning it, but its a situation that we have to work on as well.

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-28 21:46:40

Don't get me wrong... Bush isn't the kind of person to walk out of a Texas steakhouse with his Wranglers and cowboy hat with is belt loosened so his gut can hang out, and then he goes and says "Damn English! Just remember who won the Revolutionary War!"

No no. He passes off a down-to-earth type feel, like he's another hard working rancher that's trying to institute old time values. That's where he's different. European leaders will talk about their cloning plans, and 2nd trimester abortions, and outrageous empowerment; Bush will talk about giving money back to the average American family, and getting rid of cloning because it is cruel and unpredictable, and keeping our values a major part of our life (mentors to prisoner's kids, etc.).

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-28 22:38:35

Bush successfully spoke to the fears of the averagge cowardly American, yes.

Saddam is an evil scary man and he must be stopped!

BTW, I didn't actually watch the State of the Union address. I read the White House text just minutes after it finished.

soph · 2003-01-29 05:38:40

Oh dear, caltech is reciting the bs party line.

Palomar · 2003-01-29 08:51:54

Saddam is an evil scary man and he must be stopped!

*Actually, Saddam Hussein is an evil man...unless you consider a man who sanctions and allows the torture of children in order to punish parents suspected of some wrongdoing as not being evil. Children there can be subject to having acid dropped on their skin, having nails pulled out and god knows what else. These are premeditated, deliberate acts of torture.

I think the UN should handle Saddam. I'm not convinced we need to wage war on him.

I think Saddam is evil. But he's certainly not alone in the world for that, is he? I also think it's a mistake to underestimate him; you know the old saying, "Never underestimate your opponent."

--Cindy

soph · 2003-01-29 09:24:33

and caltech, the $1.2 billion is all well and good, after he basically killed the research earlier in his term. he is basically giving back what he took away and making a political issue out of it. it also helps his case against iraq.

$1.2 billion isnt all that much, considering we are going to spend 100xthat at least in an iraqi war, and 200x that to develop star wars. yes, 100 billion at least in iraq and 200 billion on star wars, not including the reagan spending on the project.

dont get me wrong, im happy about it, but you take everything he says, and put it on a marble and gold pedestal, where it really doesnt belong.

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-29 11:59:21

But the spending is not so much of a definative push for hydrogen cars, but rather a gesture to the Arabs that we will not be held hostage and blackmailed by their oil. I'm sure after the government blows through that $1.2 billion, the advances will set the stage for private industry to pick up the slack in research.

And if we don't invest that $200 billion now, it will end up costing that much and more to fix things.

soph · 2003-01-29 12:09:07

wow, you really bring new meaning to doublethink. orwell has a point.

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-29 12:17:56

Ha ha soph... I didn't know you felt that way about Republicans.

soph · 2003-01-29 12:33:58

like i said before, im no republican or democrat. it just bugs me when either side just spits out the party line as if its fact.

its funny, ive been saying we should cut our dependence on the middle east's oil for 3 years. but when our president says it, hes somehow a genius. it doesnt take that much guts when youve got the best military in the world.

clark · 2003-01-29 13:10:11

Well, I'm a bit dissapointed with the results of the state of the union address. Se la ve.

Maybe he had to cut out any mention of NASA since the budget hasn't gotten through the house yet.

Bush has still set some worthwhile goals, and I applaude those efforts.

So here is a question for the group, is the money better spent on fighting AIDS, or sending humans to mars?

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-29 21:48:50

I also think it's a mistake to underestimate him; you know the old saying, "Never underestimate your opponent."

Well, don't be mistaken. I don't think Saddam is a good guy, but I don't think I'm underestimating him. What the Bush admin is basically trying to say is that Saddam is a threat to us, directly. I think this is just laughable.

I think Chomsky argues the point effectively: http://www.zmag.org/content....ID=2422

(I only post something from Chomsky because it is bound to rile people up on this forum. I could, however, post sources from someone else.)

Palomar · 2003-01-30 08:48:30

I also think it's a mistake to underestimate him; you know the old saying, "Never underestimate your opponent."
Well, don't be mistaken. I don't think Saddam is a good guy, but I don't think I'm underestimating him. What the Bush admin is basically trying to say is that Saddam is a threat to us, directly. I think this is just laughable.
I think Chomsky argues the point effectively: http://www.zmag.org/content....ID=2422
(I only post something from Chomsky because it is bound to rile people up on this forum. I could, however, post sources from someone else.)

*I've read some material by Noam Chomsky.

Just saw the Yahoo! headlines a short while ago; Bush hasn't convinced our allies that war with Iraq is needed...and it turns out Iraq is next on the alphabetical list to chair the Disarmament Committee. "The irony is overwhelming," a gov't official said.

It's peculiar:

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/j/john-lennon/49987.htm

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-30 08:59:54

I'm a big Crossfire fan, so when I said that Saddam was an evil evil man (sarcastically), I was sort of iterating Paul Begala's famous saying. He used to refer to Saddam as this horrible evil threat that was hell bent on destroying the US.

Saddam is evil, certainly. So are a lot of Friendly Dictators. The question is whether or not he does pose a direct threat to us. I find this highly questionable.

BTW, Good Song, reflects the situation well. :;):

CalTech2010 · 2003-02-05 20:59:12

Of course Iraq could affect us directly. We position troops in the middle east constantly. It is a threat to their well-being to have a nuclear power in the region. Iraq can also affect us indirectly. After all, we are dependent on foreign oil (I hope it won't be that way in a few years when we have hydrogen cars) and having a nuclear power in the region isn't good for assuring that the oil supply is continuous. Not to mention that whole Jew/Muslim thing I keep hearing about in this little country called... oh hell, I keep forgeting... ISRAEL! That's it. What a silly goose.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-01-28 13:41:40

Re: State of the Union Address

#2 2003-01-28 13:49:53

Re: State of the Union Address

#3 2003-01-28 13:58:11

Re: State of the Union Address

#4 2003-01-28 13:59:46

Re: State of the Union Address

#5 2003-01-28 14:07:43

Re: State of the Union Address

#6 2003-01-28 15:14:03

Re: State of the Union Address

#7 2003-01-28 21:09:57

Re: State of the Union Address

#8 2003-01-28 21:16:08

Re: State of the Union Address

#9 2003-01-28 21:29:09

Re: State of the Union Address

#10 2003-01-28 21:36:37

Re: State of the Union Address

#11 2003-01-28 21:38:43

Re: State of the Union Address

#12 2003-01-28 21:46:40

Re: State of the Union Address

#13 2003-01-28 22:38:35

Re: State of the Union Address

#14 2003-01-29 05:38:40

Re: State of the Union Address

#15 2003-01-29 08:51:54

Re: State of the Union Address

#16 2003-01-29 09:24:33

Re: State of the Union Address

#17 2003-01-29 11:59:21

Re: State of the Union Address

#18 2003-01-29 12:09:07

Re: State of the Union Address

#19 2003-01-29 12:17:56

Re: State of the Union Address

#20 2003-01-29 12:33:58

Re: State of the Union Address

#21 2003-01-29 13:10:11

Re: State of the Union Address

#22 2003-01-29 21:48:50

Re: State of the Union Address

#23 2003-01-30 08:48:30

Re: State of the Union Address

#24 2003-01-30 08:59:54

Re: State of the Union Address

#25 2003-02-05 20:59:12

Re: State of the Union Address

Board footer