State of the Union Address

[JD074]

I know I'm a little late bringing this up, but I have to get it off my chest. What an awful, awful speech. His attacks on protectionism and isolationism were ludicrous, given how unsuccessful his free trade and interventionist policies have been so far. How dare he talk down to us when he has failed so miserably? It's utterly shameful. His free trade policy has resulted in the loss of millions of manufacturing jobs, and his stupid war has "radicalized Islam," putting us in greater danger- not making us safer.

Here's a great article by Pat Buchanan. He hits it right on the head.

 

[Don Wassall]

Considering that both the Republican and Democrat parties are rabidly anti-isolationist when it comes to foreign policy, trade and immigration, Bush could only have been acknowledging the growing anti-Empire sentiment among the American people to launch his attacks on protectionism and isolationism. I consider that a good sign that the time-honored, common sense principles of America First are finally starting to resonate in the countryside.

And yes, the speech was not only instantly forgettable, Bush is also a horrible speaker. He has a very stilted, awkward delivery. He's so third-rate in every department.

 

[guest301]

I don't agree with you on the war because Islam was already "radicalized". But I do have to agree with you on the free trade policies of this nation no matter which party holds the presidency. We have lost tens of millions of manufacturing jobs in this country due to the phony baloney predatory capittalism of free trade. I am a capitalist and believe in democracy but sometimes I don't think we as a nation practice that anymore. I say that as a supporter of Pres. Bush.

By the way did anybody see Fox News this afternoon and see a former Iraqi general interviewed who had evidence of Saddam moving WMD"S into Syria shortly before the war started. I have been saying this for years but finally the truth may come out. There will likely be a congressional investigation in the house with this new information.

 

[White Shogun]

I don't think he has 'radicalized Islam" against us. They're already against us, and have been for some time. I think the more we kowtow the more they'll take until we're overrun completely.

The more I think about it the more I think we need to have taken on Saddam Hussein, and Iran next. And we need to break away from Saudi oil, without a doubt. In the mean time, Europe needs to deport the radicals, their relatives, near relatives and anyone who sympathizes with them. The more I read the more I believe we are firmly at war with a nebulous, mobile enemy that spreads like a contagion and is not limited to a certain race, nation or group of nations. Islam as a radical religious movement has to be squashed.

Anybody who thinks Islam can be negotiated with and placated should remember Neville Chamberlain.

 

[guest301]

Amen to everyhting you said in your last posting, White Shogun. Islam is no longer just a threat to Israel but to the U.S.A. and Europe as well. As much as some of you guys may not like Pres. Bush, would Kerry or Gore done any better. If they had won, 9-11 would have led to nothing more than a brief exchange of cruise missiles into Afghanistan accomplishing nothing, also culminating with endless meetings with the U.N. accomplishing nothing. Like him or not, Pres. Bush was made for this moment in history and at least he takes the enemy seriously(most of the time anyway).

 

[Don Wassall]

Come on about the "WMD." Even the truth-challenged Bush administration isn't spouting that line anymore. If we stayed out of the internal affairs of other countries and minded our own business instead of wanting to run the world through the auspices of our hubris-filled neo-cons, we would not be "at war" with Islam. We have done everything possible to turn them against us because our government does the bidding of Israel and the oil companies. A big part of this perpetual war with the Arab world is about feeding the voracious appetite of the military/industrial complex, which always needs a foreign enemy to keep the "Defense" budget bloated. At least when the Defense Department used to be called the War Department it was an honest name.

How could any Arab or Muslim possibly be pro-American given Washington's foreign policy vis a vis the Middle East?

 

[White Shogun]

Don, what do you think about all the Muslim claims against the native born people in their host nations, like banning piglet images in the workplace, or the St. George Cross, or promising to burn down churches because a newspaper printed a cartoon that insulted their religion? Should we ban all speech and expression targeting Islam? Or any religion, for that matter?

What about the Muslim immigrant attacks on white people in Europe, Scandinavia, Ausrtalia, and elsewhere in the Western world? How do we reconcile this type of behavior with the world at large?

Can they be resolved as separate issues? Repatriation of Muslim radicals from Western nations, coupled with a less pro-Israeli policy with a pro-Arab one? Do you believe such steps would lessen the Muslim antagonism towards the West?

 

[Don Wassall]

This is the problem with multiculturalism and internationalism. Everything is backwards. A nationalist government would not allow non-whites and non-Christians into a white country. But the U.S. and most European countries have been flooded with them, while at the same time the Empire builders in Washington do everything possible to alienate them.

Yes, I do think repatriation followed by a foreign policy of armed neutrality is the only solution. But that will never happen with either the Democrats or Republicans. But I shouldn't say never, because the Muslim upheaval in France, followed by all this upheaval over "cartoons" may cause a massive backlash in Europe that favors repatriation. And the insane drive to follow the failed occupation in Iraq with a new war in Iran is going to have massive repercussions here as well. What they will be I don't know, but the cracks in the system get larger every day.

 

[Bart]

I am not an apologist for Islam by any stretch of the imagination, but our policies in the mid-east have been like poking a rattle snake with a stick or wacking a bee hive with a baseball bat. Can't remember who said it, but I agree. If it wasn't for our so-called friend in the middle east, we wouldn't have so many enemies.

 

[White Shogun]

If it wasn't for our so-called friend in the middle east, we wouldn't have so many enemies.

I have to disagree. Europe has been pro-Palestinian / pro-Arab for some time, and there is still no love for Europe in the Muslim world. Just look at whats going on there right now. It isn't Europe's support of Israel and the Jews that has Muslims raping women in Scandinavia, slaughtering Dutch movie makers, threatening to blow up churches and behead the citizens of Europe!

 

[guest301]

I agree with White Shogun. The Islamic world has disdain and outright hatred of anybody that's not Islamic. The support for the terrorists in the Islamic world is very mainstream. These terrorist groups enjoy wide popular support throughout the muslim world, they are not extremist groups by any means. The " watch for another 9-11 signs " that Bear- Arms posted in another thread says it all.

 

[Don Wassall]

Leaving out completely the cause-and-effect that has turned the Islamic world against the U.S., how then are we supposed to make Muslims "like" us? Continue to bomb and invade Arab countries, forcing them to have "democracies" at the barrel of a gun? Exterminate them all? Seriously, what do you propose to do to "solve" the problem of Muslim/Arab hatred of America and the West?

 

[guest301]

I don't care whether the muslims ever "like" us as you stated Don. Having their respect and even fear should be our objective. It's a tired refrain to keep hearing it's all about big oil and Israel.Don you seem to believe no progress has been accomplished in the middle east these last few years. I beg to differ. Libya has voluntarily disarmed itself of WMD"S. Afghanistan is free, had democratic elections for the first time ever and and what's left of AL Qaeda and the Taliban are hiding in the mountains. Iraq just had elections. Jordan and Egypt have become more moderate and have lugit opposition in their elections now. Even the Saudi's and the Yemeni's have stepped up their efforts against the terrorists if for no other reason than self- preservation. I do think their could be some light at the end of the tunnel here.

 

[SteveB]

Leaving out completely the cause-and-effect that has turned the Islamic world against the U.S., how then are we supposed to make Muslims "like" us? Continue to bomb and invade Arab countries, forcing them to have "democracies" at the barrel of a gun? Exterminate them all? Seriously, what do you propose to do to "solve" the problem of Muslim/Arab hatred of America and the West?

The only reason we even deal with these people is because of their oil reserves. We should find alternatives to Middle East oil and FAST. Whether it is developing new technogy or developing other oil reserves or a combiniation of both, we need to quit messing around. Since they have no other industry, they need our money as much as we need their oil. Once we don't need their oil, we can isolate them. If that doesn't work, I'm all for the nuclear option.

 

[Don Wassall]

So, 301, if an anti-Washington, radical Jewish regime took power in Israel, you'd be all for demanding that Israel dismantle its 200+ nuclear weapons, or else be bombed and invaded by the U.S.? After all, if the possibility of Iran or Iraq having even one nuclear weapon is worth losing thousands of U.S. soldiers over, along with spending hundreds of billions of dollars, surely the same would apply to all other countries equally, not just Arab ones.

 

[guest301]

If the democrats in the senate would stop getting in the way of our drilling in Alaskan wildlife areas for oil(which there is plenty of) we could go a long way to energy independence in this country. More refineries are needed as well. There are alot of politicians who care more about the needs of the caribou than the needs of the people. This country needs to be much more self-sufficient. The loss of the mom and pop businesses and the rise of the Wal-marts are slowly killing the economic independence of this country.

 

[SteveB]

I think that Alaskan drilling is something that we need to do (in addition to the oil, it could help payoff some of the debt), but it is on a band-aid on the problem. What is needed is a national effort to totally change our economy from oil based to other energy sources. Much like when JFK decided that we needed to go to the moon, our national leaders need to step up to the challenge.

 

[JD074]

The other thing that really annoyed me is when he said that given a level playing field, no one can out-compete the American worker. But where is this so-called level playing field? When a country like Japan has a 25% tariff, and we have a 5% tariff, how's that fair? When China is robbing us of our intellectual property, how's that fair? Bush refuses to address these issues with other countries. He couldn't care less. If we're going to have free trade, other countries must play by the same rules as we do; otherwise, we should match their tariffs. (We should also implement all those measures that the Libertarians/ fiscal conservatives endorse, like reducing tax burdens on American businesses, and curbing frivolous litigation and excessive union power.)

As for Islam, I agree with Don. Muslim immigration into the West and our interventionist foreign policy in the Middle East are two totally separate issues. Unfortunately, the white leaders of the Western World are wrong on both counts. All Western countries must drastically reduce all non-white immigration, and the United States government/ military must extricate itself from the Middle East. Also, all white countries must end their Big Welfare Nanny States and increase their birth rates; that will eliminate the "reasons" for massive non-white immigration in the first place.

But those measures would require 180 degree reversals in philosophy for our insane, suicidal white leaders. We may be doomed....

And Aragorn and Shogun, if you believe in going to war against Iran, you should go over there and that fight that war yourself.

Edited by: JD074

 

[Bart]

What do we get from Israel in return for all the money they suck out of our pockets? Yes, we should open up Alaska for drilling and find new energy sources, but we've been talking about this for more than 30 years. Where would we be without the Saudis? They often saved our bacon from OPEC. Think about it for a moment! What if all the Arabs told us to get screwed and decided not to sell us oil anymore or doubled, tripled and quadrupled their prices?! They could you know, it's under their soil not ours. The Jews control the diamond industry, rationing and controlling prices. If the Arabs did the same and decided to play rough with the only real power they have, we'd be reeling big time. Having been in business for many years, I can guarantee that if the Israeli's had a strangle hold on all the oil fields the price of gas at the pump would be about $10.00 a gallon , not $2.50.

 

[SteveB]

Here's a tidbit I heard from the Super Bowl. Al Michaels announced that the Super Bowl was being watched by 1 million U.S. troops overseas in over 70 countries. Well let's see, we have 150,000 in Iraq and 25,000 in Afghanistan, that leaves 825,000 in over 68 countries! Why do we have that many troops where we aren't fighting anyone? Bring them home and cut the defense budget in half.Edited by: SteveB

 

[Colonel_Reb]

Amen to that SteveB! We got plenty of stuff for them to do over here, namely closing our Southern border.

 

[White Shogun]

And Aragorn and Shogun, if you believe in going to war against Iran, you should go over there and that fight that war yourself.

Maybe I would if I was still young enough. The truth is you don't know whether I'm in the military, have served in the military in the past, or have family currently serving. Most of the posts I've read here denigrate the military for being an arm of the pro-Zionist U.S. government anyway, and you don't seem to support those who serve in it. If thats the case, what do you care if we go to war with Iran anyway?

The plan as I've read (and concur with) appears to be to begin repatriating Muslims from Western nations. I'm sure they'll be thrilled at this prospect and cut back on their terrorist acts and all, just to show us how much they appreciate our sense of identity.

You guys seem to think that one must be anti-Israel or anti-Muslim but cannot be both. Well, if I had to describe my position, I'd say I am both anti-Israel AND anti-Muslim.

I don't think we need to give Israel billions of dollars in financial aid every year. I don't believe we need to support Israel at all costs.

I don't believe that we should allow unbridled Muslim, or any, immigration into Western nations. But I don't think the United States and the West should allow nations that are obviously hostile to the West to build nuclear weapons. If you think that being pro-Israeli is the only reason Muslims hate the West, how do you explain their treatment of native peoples in their host nations, like Sweden and Australia, for instance? They hate the West because, pick one: we're secular; we're Christian; we're wealthy; or, my personal favorite - we're not Muslim.

I think we should do everything we can in our power as a nation to free ourselves from energy dependence on the Middle East, while we're at it.

I have often pointed out to co-workers and others the atrocities that Israel has committed against the Palestinians. But that doesn't mean I'm in favor of women recruiting grade school kids to blow themselves up in 'the cause,' either.

The U.S. has bailed out Muslims in the past, but we get no credit for any of it. We saved Kuwait (Muslim) from Iraq (Muslim) when no other Muslim nation bothered to lift a hand to aid their fellow Muslims. Where were all the Muslims when white European Bosnian Muslims were getting axed at the hands of the Serbs? They can't call for military strikes against the Serbs but will call for the bombings of churches and beheadings because of a damn cartoon??

Let's say we do not intrude on Iran's plans to build nuclear weapons. Do you think they will use them in self-defense? Only against Israel? Is it okay if they hit Europe, as long as the United States is not affected by fallout or are not ourselves a direct target of a ballistic missle?

For the record, I do not consider the interests of Israel or the majority of the Muslim world to be in the best interest of the United States. Edited by: White Shogun

 

[Don Wassall]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer130.html

 

[hedgehog]

I think one can support or be in favor of going to war against a country without having to personally go over there and fight in the thing.

 

[Bart]

I think one can support or be in favor of going to war against a country without having to personally go over there and fight in the thing.

Most people would agree with that comment. I do have loads of contempt though, for a man like Dick Cheney. When he was young and eligible he did everything in his power to avoid military service in a time of war, managing five deferments over the space of years. He's on record as saying that he had different priorities in those days. Now that he's old, fat, very rich and well out of harms way, he bristles at those who are not as jingoistic as he and his neo-con buddies. At the sound of a muffler's backfire, he heads for a shelter. Creep!