Drink Tank

Extra Aqua Vitae Nulla Salus

8.31.2005

Reason #128

Transcript of President Bush's speech at North Island

"If Zarqawi and bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks; they'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions; they could recruit more terrorists by claiming an historic victory over the United States and our coalition."

18 Comments:

At 2:52 PM, Blogger oded said...

I wonder if he said "an historic" or if a british person typed this up.

 
At 4:22 PM, Blogger Miguel said...

Mr. President,

In what ways will Zarqawi's and bin Laden's "training ground" differ from your current flypaper strategy? Less realistic Americans?

Do you think think claiming your enemies wish to "seize oil fields" for money is funny, in light of how your policies are viewed by nearly all observers?

Don't you think that in fact the perpetual war that you're waging is the most effective recruiting tool, and that when both sides declare victory at some future point, that will lessen terrorist recruitment?

 
At 4:32 PM, Blogger oded said...

i dont think Bush reads our blog.

 
At 5:22 PM, Blogger Ivan said...

MS Word doesn't complain about either "an historic" or "a historic".


---


"when both sides declare victory at some future point"

thank god those terrorists are only nightmares installed by our fascist president. if only we'd stop attacking them, they'd get on with all the peace-lovin their religion calls for.

Police aren't the root cause of crime. Somewhat related: read this.


"Do you think think claiming your enemies wish to "seize oil fields" for money is funny, in light of how your policies are viewed by nearly all observers?"

Those that can get beyond the headlines know that there is a global market for oil. Buying oil from a Saddam-ruled-Kuwait is identical to a free-Iraq ruled oil field. The only failure here is in PR. The "blood for oil" reasoning is thin. I mean, if we wanted Saddam's oil to get on the market, we could have just lifted the sanctions...

The only problem with that particular Bush comment is that a more logical strategy is for islamofascists to damage the production of oil. An oil shock would hurt both the US & the Saudi princes.

 
At 6:16 PM, Blogger Miguel said...

I'm serious. I think the President & his cabinet have been open about the fact that Operation Iraqi Freedom has helped Zarqawi et al to recruit, and I think he's wrong to turn around and claim that an end to the operation would help them recruit more; I think the opposite is true.

 
At 9:42 AM, Blogger Ivan said...

An end to the occupation would probably mean civil war and chaos in Iraq.

That seems like an ideal environment to start new training grounds. Also, momentum would be on their side. Our loss in Iraq could be used in recruiting in saying "We beat them in Iraq, now let's beat them on their turf!"

You can also do a more relevant accounting: the number of folks who can attack us in America is the most direct measure of the security benefit/harm in any decision. I would say the number dropped after the invasion, might have increased since then, and would certainly increase dramatically if we ended the occupation without complete victory.

Considering that most of Iraq is looking inwards today, with the terrorists and insurgents attacking locally, flypaper holds. In a civil war, a group could easily get lost in the confusion to stage a large attack on the west from there.

 
At 11:34 AM, Blogger Miguel said...

An end to the occupation would probably mean civil war and chaos in Iraq.

When we said this war would lead to civil war and chaos in Iraq, you guys were all like "no it won't." Being that Republicans control the government, it'd be nice if you could be right about something for a change.

I asked in our last discussion of flypaper "Was al Qaeda killing 800 a month before the war?" and you ignored the question; until you come up with an answer, I can't accept the premise that Bush policies have done anything but strengthen the power of insurgents.

 
At 1:48 PM, Blogger Ivan said...

I didn't say civil war would happen. I explained how a poor strategy choice could have bad consequences.

"Was al Qaeda killing 800 a month before the war?"

No, but al Qaeda was killing plenty.

Al Qaeda is more active in Iraq than anywhere else, which is a good in that there have been no subsequence terrorist attacks in the US. Those recent attacks in London were not by foreign terrorists with global reach, and are related to immigration issues more than anything else.

Those willing to kill innocent people in order to hurt American interests are not created by the war. They are only emboldened by it, and thankfully, we are killing and incapacitating them in droves.

It’s kind of like that story about Churchill:
At a dinner party one night, an inebriated Churchill asked an attractive woman whether she would sleep with him for a million pounds.
“Maybe,” the woman said coyly.
“Would you sleep with me for one pound?” Churchill then asked.
“Of course not, what kind of woman do you think I am?” the woman responded indignantly. “Madam, we’ve already established what kind of woman you are,” said Churchill, “now we’re just negotiating the price.”


Don’t give me shit about freedom fighters. Those folks in Iraq are fighting for nothing but tyranny, either religious or sectarian.

 
At 2:16 PM, Blogger Miguel said...

Those willing to kill innocent people in order to hurt American interests are not created by the war.

Bullshit. Think about how much more aggressive you think America should be in light of the attacks on our country of four years ago.

No one's calling our enemies in Iraq freedom fighters in this discussion. It strikes me that it's war supporters who claim to be freedom fighters in the ongoing Iraq war debate.

 
At 4:43 PM, Blogger Ivan said...

"Bullshit. Think about how much more aggressive you think America should be in light of the attacks on our country of four years ago."

America wasn't attacked because we attacked muslim countries. It was attacked because of paranoid people convinced by their own dictatorial governments that the cause of their suffereing is the American-Jew Octopus.


"No one's calling our enemies in Iraq freedom fighters in this discussion. It strikes me that it's war supporters who claim to be freedom fighters in the ongoing Iraq war debate."

It was a pre-emptive comment.

 
At 5:27 PM, Blogger oded said...

pre-emptive coments like pre-emptive attacs make little sense to rational people.

 
At 6:16 PM, Blogger oded said...

America wasn't attacked because we attacked muslim countries.

maybe thats not why were atacked, but I think it is a good reason to expect more attacks.

 
At 6:23 PM, Blogger Ivan said...

Unless you admit to never having favored the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" meme, the comment was rational. I think I've had to use the phrase "anti-moral reletavism" in connection to something similar.

""America wasn't attacked because we attacked muslim countries."

maybe thats not why were atacked, but I think it is a good reason to expect more attacks."

So attacking Afghanistan was a mistake because it was a muslim country? Shouldn't the assessment be one of threat? Again, not to get into the whole Iraq debate, but avoiding a counter-attack is not the strongest reason not to attack in the first place.

 
At 6:58 PM, Blogger oded said...

avoiding a counter-attack is not the strongest reason not to attack in the first place.

whats a better reason not to attack than not wanting to be attacked yourself?

 
At 7:00 PM, Blogger oded said...

Unless you admit to never having favored the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" meme


define terrorist.

 
At 7:18 PM, Blogger Ivan said...

"whats a better reason not to attack than not wanting to be attacked yourself?"

No, the question is what benefit is so large as to outweight the cost of a potential counter attack.

[Outside of iraq debate], imagine a man pointing a gun at your head. Do you try to shoot him? What if he tries to attack you back?!!!

I would like to add that there has been no counter attack against the US, 911 happened before the invasion of Iraq, and most importantly, mass murderers don't need provocation.


" Unless you admit to never having favored the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" meme


define terrorist."


Boy am I not interested in debating the issue to which I already said, with obvious good reason and insight, "Don’t give me shit about freedom fighters. Those folks in Iraq are fighting for nothing but tyranny, either religious or sectarian."

Tyrants are terrorists.

 
At 9:44 AM, Blogger Miguel said...

Ivan, it's obvious that you love to debate whether the terrorists are good people, but it's not an issue. I'm saying that a United States occupation force in Iraq is helpful for al Qaeda in their recruitment efforts.

You missed my point about 9-11; I have nothing to say about the attackers, rather about youre personal reaction, libving in NYC at that time. Since then, you have changed considerably and think that America should attack your percieved enemies in Muslim countries much more than you did before the attack. Similarly, our war of choice against Baathist Iraq, as you yourself state, has resulted in the attackees in Iraq (as well as a small number of Arabs from other countries who also feel that the US in Iraq humiliates Muslims) taking up arms against us. This is not only uncontroversial, it was expected, and the benefits of arresting the Hussien family do not outweigh the costs.

[Outside of iraq debate], imagine a man pointing a gun at your head. Do you try to shoot him?

It depends, but the predilection for imagining things irrelevant to the question at hand, and then acting as if your paranoid fantasies are some sort of basis for judgement is why the Bush Jr. administration is correctly percieved by nearly all as insane. Colin Powell went to the UN to claim that Saddam Hussein had a gun pointed at the world's head, and he was lying throughout his presentation. The metaphor is irrelevant.

Also, for the record, I think your preemtive comment was quite rude, as it presumes that I think the warmongers fighting on the other side of this war are good; they're horrible, and my criticisms of our government are largely motivated by the fact that the stupid policies we've implemented play into their hands.

 
At 11:09 AM, Blogger oded said...

so a terrorist is someone who is percived by you as tyranical or are there exceptions?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home