giulianis speech text

[Mr NJ Sports]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/30/giuliani.transcript/index.html


All you leftie windbags wondering why we are at war read this a few times until it sinks in.

 

[Oren1]

Did Saddam Hussein have anything to do with 9/11, al Quada, or jihad terrorism? The only connection they've found is he rejected Bin Laden's attempts to form an alliance. The "lefty windbags" are not necessarily agianst the war on terror. They are, however, against our leaders lying to us about their reasons for going to war, launching an ill-prepared pre-emptive strike on a soveriegn nation, and in the process of doing so alienating our allies. Guiliani's speech left out just about every single important issue in America todya BESIDES the war on terror. If that's all you guys have to stand on, it's pretty damn pathetic.

 

[Mr NJ Sports]

But a 4 month war record from 40 years ago is mighty relevant.

 

[SENDITIN]

Did Saddam Hussein have anything to do with 9/11, al Quada, or jihad terrorism?

How about the payments to the families of suicide bombers? Nothing to do with terrorism there. How about the fact that the leader of the current insurrection in Iraq Zarqawi was being cared for in a Baghdad hospital after being injured in Afghanistan. Guess he heard there was good jello there.

 

[Benassflick]

What a twit he is. He disagrees with all Bush's policies yet he stands up for him. Are all Americans this stupid?


Giulianis is for a womans choice, for gay marraige and has completly differnt views on stem cell research than Bush to name a few.

 

[Benassflick]

Don't you guys worry Bush has partnered up with O.J. and they are tracking Bin Laden down on the golf course. There has been a 16th hole sitting

 

[xpanda]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SENDITIN:
_Did Saddam Hussein have anything to do with 9/11, al Quada, or jihad terrorism?_

How about the payments to the families of suicide bombers? Nothing to do with terrorism there. How about the fact that the leader of the current insurrection in Iraq Zarqawi was being cared for in a Baghdad hospital after being injured in Afghanistan. Guess he heard there was good jello there. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All things the US government has done, continues to do, and will likely do in the future in the name of the National Interest. But, speaking of Saddam, if his funding suicide bombers means he deserved to be taken out, then surely the funding of Bin Laden and Saddam mean that the Reagan admin should have been taken out, too?

Hypocrites.

 

[xpanda]

The word 'Iraq' appears four times in that speech. 'Bin Laden' not at all. For a war that was in the name of defeating the various kinds and types of terrorists and their tactics, and for a speech dedicated entirely to the 'war on terror', doesn't this strike you as a bit of an oversight?

 

[PatPatriot]

Hi Punkin Pie!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> and for a speech dedicated entirely to the 'war on terror', doesn't this strike you as a bit of an oversight? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Bin Laden is to terrorism what Col. Sanders is to fried chicken.Symbolism.
As far as entirely goes.The compassionate conservatives come out tonight..
Hold on to your hat we could end up miles from here!

 

[xpanda]

Bin Laden is symbolism?

This is the guy that masterminded 9/11, was responsible in large part for Afghanistan getting the shit kicked out of her, and you call him symbolism??

As for 'compassionate conservatives' you will be electing those at your next Congressional and Senate elections ... there are none to speak of in this Presidential Race.

 

[poopsicle]

IF

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Bin Laden is to terrorism what Col. Sanders is to fried chicken <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Than that means he perfected it, a lot like pressure frying chicken. He is much more than symbolism Watson.

 

[SENDITIN]

But, speaking of Saddam, if his funding suicide bombers means he deserved to be taken out, then surely the funding of Bin Laden and Saddam mean that the Reagan admin should have been taken out, too?

Different points in time and different situations X and you know it. The British used to be our enemy. Should we take out all the admins that support the British now? The Japanese used to be our enemy...same point.

 

[xpanda]

Ah, I see. So long as it serves the US National Interest then it's okay??

The US knew damn well Saddam was blasting the crap out of the Kurds in 1988. To now discuss Saddam's 'human rights atrocities' as though the West was not complicit in this account is ludicrous, and you know it.

My point is that Saddam's helping Zarqawi (which is still only an allegation, by the way) is not automatically indicative of his support of AQ and/or knowledge of the 9/11 attacks in advance. If you can find me a nation and/or a leader who has not in some way, by covert action or absence of action, supported terrorism, then hats off. Even Canada is guilty of turning a blind eye. So, too, is the US. Unless it no longer suits them.

The hypocrisy of the War on Terror is positively nauseating.

 

[bblight]

xpanda - What have you got against the US? Did we reject your application to emmigrate?

 

[xpanda]

I object to the US declaration that they are the leader of the free world and are by rights appointed to make the world in their image. Especially since their image isn't nearly as squeaky-clean as they would have you believe.

Plus, it's only a matter of time until Canada gets hit for it's complicity and relationship with US imperialism. It's a very paralysing feeling being so heavily affected by something that you cannot vote against.

I guess it's alot like American resistance to international groups like the UN. In fact, it's probably identical.

 

[UncleMoneybags]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I object to the US declaration that they are the leader of the free world and are by rights appointed to make the world in their image. Especially since their image isn't nearly as squeaky-clean as they would have you believe. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hear arguments similar to this on 2 other boards I frequent and not just from Canadians. That leaves only 2 choices: 1. Take your medicine and complain here and elsewhere or 2. Do something about it like al-Sadr and his henchmen. If you choose the latter at least you could get some respect. Anytime there's something infuriating to this group I can expect the same diatribe over and over again. In fact, I'll probably hear about it later.

The problem with your P.O.V., xpanda, is that it assumes that there is a "good" government out there when there is not. That's one reason I consider myself an anarchist to some degree.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Plus, it's only a matter of time until Canada gets hit for it's complicity and relationship with US imperialism. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If it makes you feel better, you guys are way down the list of valuable targets as you have 275 million Americans and 6 million Jews in addition to many millions of Euro's that may or may not include the French ahead of you.

 

[bblight]

Geez xpanda - I find myself agreeing with you about America being the cop! The problem is that the US is the superpower - and, as 911 proved, economies can be delicate things that can topple at the drop of a jet. The US can let the world go to hell in a handbasket, or it can intervene. I like my standard of living - so I prefer that the US government protect the US economy.

By the way - if I were a Canadian, I'd want the same thing, because if our economy shits the bed, then your economy will do the same - at best! I'm not trying to demean Canada when I say this, but our economies are so intertwined that, economically speaking, Canada is like a fifty first state.

 

[Oren1]

anyways, what Saddam did to help suicide bombers is peanuts compared to what other countries are doing. We still don't have a clear, or valid reason for shifting our attention to Iraq after Afganistan.

 

[jointpleasures]

Rudy is a New Yorker you actually grow to like!

 

[Illini]

yeah, we did. And Kerry and Edwards both said so too.