Bush's Speech - A LIE

George Bush said in his speech in Washington DC that the US is a Humane Country.

Here are some reasons why:
-The US will soon allow illegal immigrants in the US to be legal because according to Bush this way employers would stop abusing their workers who are working illegally.
-The US made a way for Iraqi Women to be able to go to school now.
-The American Organizations are membered by people of faith to encourage people toward Faith.

Humane Country??? That is the lamest and funniest thing to say about the US. Does George Bush have any idea how the US have manipulated the world? A humane country would not manipulate another country and blind the world just because they are powerful. We have to wake up from the stupid idea that the US will always be our peace maker or world leader. Look at the Iraqi people, they are complaining because the US has not changed their lives in Iraq. The people are not getting what they were promised of. If it wasn’t for the US we would not have to send our guys to Iraq to fight and die in the war. Imagine how many bloody British guys died in the war? It’s not our fight it’s theirs.

Bush is semi-literate? When did he get lessons? :smiley:

This is too funny. If it weren’t for fucking Britain, there wouldn’t have been an Iraq to fight in! Much less an Israel, or a ruling House of Saud, or any of a dozen other Middle Eastern ills that threaten world peace today.

Here’s a photo of Tigerman for those of you who’ve never met him. As you can see, he’s really a big pussycat:

[color=blue]Tigerman, what did you think of President Bush’s state of the union speech? (This isn’t a trick question. I’m really interested in your take on it.)[/color]

Before anyone gets excited or worried that i have deleted their posts, I have moved those posts critical of the moderating in this forum to the Debate Etiquette and Thread Moderating II thread here:


Here’s my problem with George Bush…He’s selectively eliminating regimes at will and I am a glad countries like Canada Germany and France have stood up to him. If he is re-elected I hope someone puts a bullet in his head because he is a threat to peace and security in the world.

Have you noticed he won’t go after China and it’s only because of $$$.

Now, why would I expect a trick question from you… :wink:

I thought it was an OK speech… I didn’t care for it as much as I have liked his previous speeches, where I think he was showing more leadership. But let’s face it, this is an election year and just about every President seeking a second term has made his last SOTU address of his first term more political in nature.

As such, this speech was much more partisan and very much a defense of what he has done (or what has been done during his term of office) rather than a broad outline of changes to come.

I already know what has happened and I know how I feel about most of it… I’d rather hear what is planned for the future.


Not to go into the many complexities of foreign policy, but wherein is China a threat to the US or anyone else except Taiwan? Second, what can the US do about bringing greater democracy to China? Third, can the US do anything given Chinas strength and nuclear weapons?

Next point: Yes, Chretien stood up to George W. and now by the way he is out. Paul Martin (he would be Canadas new prime minister) is looking for ways to move back to good relations with the US. Germany and France opposed the US because it acted outside the UN and for promoting a dangerous new preemptive policy, BUT Germany and France supported the exact same type of action against Serbia with regard to Kosovo and earlier with regard to Afghanistan. AND since then, in June have formally committed themselves in Luxembourg to preemptive policies as well. So I take it that your stance has nothing to do with principle and everything to do with your ignorant dislike of Bush and American foreign policy, which you are unable to verbalize since you really do not know just what foreign policy goals and aspirations you do support except for of course a perfect world, peace and aid for the poor. Gotcha.

So as long as America does not always get what it wants, that is good and to hell with improving Iraqi lives, AND who says these lives are not getting better. Hell even the BBC (communist station that it is and certainly no friend of Bush) featured a special yesterday that was aired here in the Arab World at least in Morocco about how the region is booming with all the rebuilding going on in Iraq. So this is not good? because America or rather AmeriKKKa caused it?

Bush stated quite forcefully, in early 2001, that the U.S. would protect Taiwan – and he was roundly criticized for it by the “international community” and the “Democrats”, because that was ever so undiplomatic.

Bush hasn’t threatened to invade China for many reasons:

  1. China hasn’t attacked the U.S.
  2. The U.S. is diplomatically trying to get China to stop supporting North Korea.
  3. China has nuclear weapons and an enormous army, not to mention a large economy.

Exactly what has China done to deserve an invasion? Or is that not what you meant by “go after China”?? If not, what exactly do you want Bush to do about China? Spread his legs like Clinton did?

You’re annoyed about Afghanistan and irate about Iraq – but you’d be copacetic about treating China similarly? Man, you’ve got issues. :unamused:

  1. China has nuclear weapons and an enormous army, not to mention a large economy.

Excuse me… :x

The reason why Bush can’t touch China is sipmly because the US wants to make some bucks out of Taiwan by selling stupid weapons. And the most obvious reason is the US is being chickened out by China’s Enormous Army and Large Economy which will soon be the world’s largest consumer group. The real reason why China hasn’t attack US is because it’s just the of their effort, army and weapon. It’s killing an Ant with a gun.[/quote]

bush has personally done more to improve the security of taiwan in the last 3 years than every other leader in the world combined. and that’s even after factoring in his recent little sell-out. what’s the canadian or french position on taiwan? what’s the un stand on taiwan? lol. always funny when i hear people from countries where taiwan is refered to as a province of china bitch about the us selling taiwan out.

Canada’s stand on Taiwan is that it is an internal dispute to be resolved by China and Taiwan. If you remember it was Canada who was one of the first nations to switch the UN seat, justifiably so I might add, from the ROC to the PRC.

Just curious, as I really don’t know… in what manner does Canada believe the internal dispute should be resolved? I know that US policy is to encourage a peaceful resolution of the dispute between China and Taiwan by China and Taiwan themselves and the US has enacted the Taiwan Relations Act to implement its policy. What does Canada (and any other nation that maintains a stance on this matter) do to implement its policy or encourage its stand?

No need to be defensive… I’m just curious.

so you’re saying that you think the us should follow the canadian policy? stop criticizing china on human rights and stop making noises about taiwan’s security?

i’m just confused because you were criticizing bush because he hasn’t dealt with china, but his current china policy is a lot like the canadian policy except with less ass-kissing.

how exactly do you want china delt with? do you want china delt with like the neocons want(hammer them on tibet, taiwan, and lack of democracy) or do you want china delt with like the euros do(trade, trade, and more trade…what human rights violations?)?


Have you noticed he won’t go after China and it’s only because of $$$.[/quote]

i guess canada doesn’t need the $$$. they don’t go after china as a matter of principle, right? :slight_smile:

Flipper, everybody knows that non-American countries have no international responsibilities. It’s only the U.S. that is expected to take care of all of the world’s problems, and take the blame whenever things in this world get fucked up.


ah, what better way to deal with china than to sell them weapons? can you imagine the indignation on this board if the us were the ones selling china weapons? but i guess european arms dealers are warm and fuzzy beacons of principle. just like european oil companies are all cute and cuddly.

where’s the ourage? :stuck_out_tongue: