Wouldn't It Be Great To Turn On The Tv And Hear Bush Or Kerry Give This Speech

[CleBrownsfan]

My Fellow Americans: As you all know, the defeat of Iraq regime has been completed. Since congress does not want to spend any more money on this war, our mission in Iraq is complete.



This morning I gave the order for a complete removal of all American forces from Iraq. This action will be complete within 30 days. It is now to begin the reckoning.


Before me, I have two lists. One list contains the names of countries which have stood by our side during the Iraq conflict. This list is short. The United Kingdom, Spain, Bulgaria, Australia, and Poland are some of the countries listed there.


The other list contains everyone not on the first list. Most of the worlds nations are on that list. My press secretary will be distributing copies of both lists later this evening.


Let me start by saying that effective immediately, foreign aid to those nations on List 2 ceases immediately and indefinitely. The money saved during the first year alone will pretty much pay for the costs of the Iraqi war.


The American people are no longer going to pour money into third world Hell-holes and watch those government leaders grow fat on corruption.


Need help with a famine? Wrestling with an epidemic? Call France.


In the future, together with Congress, I will work to redirect this money toward solving the vexing social problems we still have at home. On that note, a word to terrorist organizations. Screw with us and we will hunt you down and eliminate you and all your friends from the face of the earth. Thirsting for a gutsy country to terrorize? Try France, or maybe China.


To Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Yo, boys. Work out a peace deal now. Just note that Camp David is closed. Maybe all of you can go to Russia for negotiations. They have some great palaces there. Big tables, too.


I am ordering the immediate severing of diplomatic relations with France, Germany, and Russia. Thanks for all your help, comrades. We are retiring from NATO as well. Bon chance, mes amis.


I have instructed the Mayor of New York City to begin towing the many UN diplomatic vehicles located in Manhattan with more than two unpaid parking tickets to sites where those vehicles will be stripped, shredded and crushed. I don't care about whatever treaty pertains to this. You creeps have tens of thousands of unpaid tickets. Pay those tickets tomorrow or watch your precious Benzes, Beamers, and limos be turned over to some of the finest chop shops in the world. I love New York. A special note to our neighbors. Canada is on List 2. Since we are likely to be seeing a lot more of each other, you folks might want to try not pissing us off for a change. Mexico is also on List 2. President Fox and his entire corrupt government really need an attitude adjustment. I will have a couple extra tank and infantry divisions sitting around. Guess where I am going to put em? Yep, border security. So start doing something with your oil.


Oh, by the way, the United States is abrogating the NAFTA treaty --- starting now. We are tired of the one-way highway.


It is time for America to focus on its own welfare and its own citizens. Some will accuse us of isolationism. I answer them be saying, "darn tootin."


Nearly a century of trying to help folks live a decent life around the world has only earned us the undying enmity of just about everyone on the planet. It is time to eliminate hunger in America. It is time to eliminate homelessness in America. It is time to eliminate World Cup Soccer from America.


To the nations on List 1, a final thought. Thanks guys. We owe you and we won't forget. To the nations on List 2, a final thought. Drop dead. God bless America. Thank you and good night.


If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in English, thank a soldier

[DaddyTorgo]

LOL. That's certainly funny. Or at least, most of it is funny. Where'd you find it?

[Router Help]

Originally Posted by CleBrownsfan

It is time to eliminate World Cup Soccer from America.

Let's not get crazy now.

[Radii]

Wouldn't It Be Great To Turn On The Tv And Hear Bush Or Kerry Give This Speech

no?

[ISiddiqui]

No, it wouldn't be great. In fact, it'd be a fucking disaster (and time to move to Canada).

[DaddyTorgo]

Can we charter a FOFC plane to Canada? Or a bus at least...I wanna get out of here. No...seriously...in November, if Bush steals another election, can we flee??

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

No...seriously...in November, if Bush steals another election, can we flee??

I'd gladly pay your way, seems that we'd both probably be happier in the long run. Only catch is -- you have to swear on your life that you wouldn't come back.

[DaddyTorgo]

not a problem...not a problem. If I'm up in Canada I won't need to come back.

[JonInMiddleGA]

It's mostly a beautiful thing CleBrowns (I do have a different approach for the Middle East but loved the rest of it).

Sadly though, it ain't likely to happen

[Noop]

This would be great. But we should build our military up in case they try to all gang up on us... but this would be great...

[Crapshoot]

the US gives $14 billion a year in foreign aid- it wouldnt come close to covering Iraq, . Im nout quite sure where this great US aid and genorousity bit comes from. That speech is a bunch of bullshit - but hey, that's to be a expected from someone who thinks US foreign policy consisted only of
trying to help folks live a decent life around the world ...

And as for NAFTA- roffle- that's idiocy on a whole new level. Anyone who wants a closed economy is clearly not a disciple of even simplistic economics- the US would be hurting its poor more so than they could ever before. NAFTA has been a success.

[sooner333]

Originally Posted by Aadik

And as for NAFTA- roffle- that's idiocy on a whole new level. Anyone who wants a closed economy is clearly not a disciple of even simplistic economics

Simplistic economics isn't what Americans want to hear these days, left or right. We know that an open economy is the way to go for the future...but most Americans care more about their jobs...and probably rightly so if they have nothing else they can do. Politicians can't get elected on the "lower tarifs" platform, plain and simple.

[QuikSand]

*sigh*

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

(I do have a different approach for the Middle East but loved the rest of it)

Was that the one where all the sand turns to glass?

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by sooner333

Simplistic economics isn't what Americans want to hear these days, left or right. We know that an open economy is the way to go for the future...but most Americans care more about their jobs...and probably rightly so if they have nothing else they can do. Politicians can't get elected on the "lower tarifs" platform, plain and simple.

Well- the Americans forget that 6.5 million of them who are employed by "foreign" companies pretty quickly- not to mention a lot of them whose jobs are pretty much wholely dependent on foreign countries. IF people don't understand free trade and rally against it-well, its stupidity on their part.

[Arles]

While some of this is certainly something I would like to see expressed in some regard, you have to look at it in a practical manner. By becoming a completely isolationist country we risk the loss of millions of foreign companies in the US, chaos erupting in areas of the world depending upon our aid and support to prevent massive civil and ethnic wars, throw a big wrench in the global economy by impairing the ability of US companies to do business aborad and who knows what happens to our energy needs if we no longer have a presence in the Middle East. If OPEC decides to stop producing oil because we pull funding for the Mid-East, our economy comes to a screeching hault.

Finally, by doing this, you have just put our nation's defense reliant upon the French and the UN to police the Middle East.

I shudder to think of the state of the world in 10 years - if one still exists.

[Fonzie]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

*sigh*

What he said.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Arles

I shudder to think of the state of the world in 10 years - if one still exists.

Drama queen

[heybrad]

Originally Posted by Aadik

the US gives $14 billion a year in foreign aid.

You know.. I saw that number and my first thought was, no way, it has to be more than that. With a quick search I found a number of sites all giving estimates between $11-14 billion.

For some reason I'm surprised by that number and figured we were giving more.

Carry on.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Arles

While some of this is certainly something I would like to see expressed in some regard, you have to look at it in a practical manner. By becoming a completely isolationist country we risk the loss of millions of foreign companies in the US, chaos erupting in areas of the world depending upon our aid and support to prevent massive civil and ethnic wars, throw a big wrench in the global economy by impairing the ability of US companies to do business aborad and who knows what happens to our energy needs if we no longer have a presence in the Middle East. If OPEC decides to stop producing oil because we pull funding for the Mid-East, our economy comes to a screeching hault.

Finally, by doing this, you have just put our nation's defense reliant upon the French and the UN to police the Middle East.

I shudder to think of the state of the world in 10 years - if one still exists.

Arlie, I dont get this US Aid arguement- its simply not that large- the US donates a lower % of its GDP than any other Western Country ( I might be wrong on this- but the last time I saw these figures it was true). The world would suffer yes undoubtedly- but the idea that the world would go to pieces if the US became isolationist strikes me as a little dramatic- as Farrah pointed out. Isolation is a stupid, pointless idea- but it would not be the (Drumroll please) end of the world.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Aadik

Arlie, I dont get this US Aid arguement- its simply not that large- the US donates a lower % of its GDP than any other Western Country ( I might be wrong on this- but the last time I saw these figures it was true). The world would suffer yes undoubtedly- but the idea that the world would go to pieces if the US became isolationist strikes me as a little dramatic- as Farrah pointed out. Isolation is a stupid, pointless idea- but it would not be the (Drumroll please) end of the world.

While the % of the US GDP is small, the aid we provide to many third world countries is very significant. Remember, $10 US is more than many people in these countries will see in a month when determining how much money is "a lot" for aid. The aid itself allows for forces to offset some of the tyrannical and very dangerous Warlords that run many of these countries. You take that money away and there is no resistance or ability for these countries to prevent the Warlords from taking complete control and starving their citizens. Then, you enter some very unstable and chaotic situations worldwide.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Arles

While the % of the US GDP is small, the aid we provide to many third world countries is very significant. Remember, $10 US is more than many people in these countries will see in a month when determining how much money is "a lot" for aid. The aid itself allows for forces to offset some of the tyrannical and very dangerous Warlords that run many of these countries. You take that money away and there is no resistance or ability for these countries to prevent the Warlords from taking complete control and starving their citizens. Then, you enter some very unstable and chaotic situations worldwide.

Arlie- dont take this personally, but I've spent a lot of my life living in these countries- US Aid doesnt do that much there, honestly- anectodally, and factually. Out of the $14 billion also, there is about $5-6 that is the bribe as part of the Egyptian Israeli peace treaty- so the real aid no is about 7-9 billion, probably less. A lot of that is tied to ridiculous assertions such as "you must buy american " (when alternative sources are a lot cheaper) or "you can't use it to promote condom usage"- things like that. Its simply not that much. I have no clue where you're getting this warlord bit from.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Aadik

US Aid doesnt do that much there, honestly- anectodally, and factually.

Then it should be no problem at all if we just keep that money right here.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Then it should be no problem at all if we just keep that money right here.

It is your right to do just that- yes. The morallity of that is a debate on its own.

Truthfully- if every dollar of US aid was cut, and the ridiculous agricultural tariffs went down with them (though Europe and EU is the worst example of this)- much of the world (and the American consumer, especially those towards the lower end of the income scale) would be better off.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Aadik

It is your right to do just that- yes. The morallity of that is a debate on its own.

Truthfully- if every dollar of US aid was cut, and the ridiculous agricultural tariffs went down with them (though Europe and EU is the worst example of this)- much of the world (and the American consumer, especially those towards the lower end of the income scale) would be better off.

See, there's the thing ... I didn't mention attaching conditions to the decision.

And the morality bit? That's just fucking laughable considering you just finished telling us how little importance the money had.

But thanks for playing.

[Subby]

Just poking my head in here to see if JIMGA had threatened to kill anybody yet.

Carry on...

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

See, there's the thing ... I didn't mention attaching conditions to the decision.

And the morality bit? That's just fucking laughable considering you just finished telling us how little importance the money had.

But thanks for playing.

Fucking laughable is your thought process and your inability to comprehend the point- but that's another issue altogether. Every little bit helps- no shit sherlock, but acting like US money is saving the world is a ridiculous notion- especially in a world as integrated economically as we have now. Im sure your personal contributions are making a significant difference.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Aadik

Arlie- dont take this personally, but I've spent a lot of my life living in these countries- US Aid doesnt do that much there, honestly- anectodally, and factually. Out of the $14 billion also, there is about $5-6 that is the bribe as part of the Egyptian Israeli peace treaty- so the real aid no is about 7-9 billion, probably less. A lot of that is tied to ridiculous assertions such as "you must buy american " (when alternative sources are a lot cheaper) or "you can't use it to promote condom usage"- things like that. Its simply not that much. I have no clue where you're getting this warlord bit from.

I don't know that losing the US money will automatically cause civil war. But, the combination of the money, food and overall aid the US provides to many of these countries, combined with the idea that the US is watching over them, does help keep some of the warlords in check. If the fear of the US intervening goes away (along with the US money), there will be nothing there to stop many of these tyrants from amassing the biggest weapons arsenal and simply "commandeering" the country.

That is a legit fear and one of the main reasons that the US going isolationist would cause a number of minor "Saddam Husseins" to pop up throughout the world without any fear of US intervention.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Arles

I don't know that losing the US money will automatically cause civil war. But, the combination of the money, food and overall aid the US provides to many of these countries, combined with the idea that the US is watching over them, does help keep some of the warlords in check. If the fear of the US intervening goes away (along with the US money), there will be nothing there to stop many of these tyrants from amassing the biggest weapons arsenal and simply "commandeering" the country.

That is a legit fear and one of the main reasons that the US going isolationist would cause a number of minor "Saddam Husseins" to pop up throughout the world without any fear of US intervention.

Fair enough- I can see the arguement in that. But if a dictator was willing to toe US line on external foreign policy- would he really have an issue with it ? Can you cite me any potential examples that meet your criteria of the US keeping warlords in check - I don't really see any beyond Afghanistan- which is a different story.

[Super Ugly]

Hip hip hooray for the isolationists!

Let the rest of the world be thankful that the USA is run by intelligent people and not knuckleheaded xenophobes with the Stars and Stripes tattooed on their necks.

[Buddy Grant]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'd gladly pay your way, seems that we'd both probably be happier in the long run. Only catch is -- you have to swear on your life that you wouldn't come back.

Finally a familiar voice of reason, only I'd also make him swear on the lives of close family members, and/or neighbors or work associates (if applicable). The contract you use should probably stipulate how the penalty for a failure to comply would be administered, you know how those liberal lawyer types can be, what with their "laws" and all.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Buddy Grant

Finally a familiar voice of reason, only I'd also make him swear on the lives of close family members, and/or neighbors or work associates (if applicable). The contract you use should probably stipulate how the penalty for a failure to comply would be administered, you know how those liberal lawyer types can be, what with their "laws" and all.

hey look- its supertroll!

[Buddy Grant]

Originally Posted by Aadik

This message is hidden because Aadik is on your ignore list.

Sorry, but I have placed everyone with more posts than me on my ignore list.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Subby

Just poking my head in here to see if JIMGA had threatened to kill anybody yet.

Carry on...

[mking]

Perhaps Bush and the boys called all the other countries and said, "We are going to Iraq. C'mon along and we'll have a ball and blow Saddam and his boys to hell".

And those leaders of other countries like Canada said, "We hate Saddam too, but listen George, what are you going to do after you whip their asses"?

And George said, "Duh, beats me. I am the leader of the free world and the leader of the free world has the right to shoot first and ask questions later".

And everyone said, "Call us Mr. President when you figure out what happens after you get rid of Saddam".

And sometimes Americans wonder why they are not universally loved.

[Daimyo]

We pay out $14B in foreign aid; how much do we make off interest on decades old loans to third world African countries?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Daimyo

We pay out $14B in foreign aid; how much do we make off interest on decades old loans to third world African countries?

More importantly, how much of that aid is to Israel and Egypt, how much is to Russia (and other republics), how much is in the form of military aid (which are often really just sales of weapons), and how much is anti-drug money? Another category that is probably inevitable, but shouldn't be counted quite the same is humanitarian disaster relief. How much development assistance (the category of aid most people usually think of) is given out by the US each year? Japan and most of Europe give out far more than the US in terms of % of GDP and, in some cases, absolute dollars.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by John Galt

More importantly, how much of that aid is to Israel and Egypt, how much is to Russia (and other republics), how much is in the form of military aid (which are often really just sales of weapons), and how much is anti-drug money? Another category that is probably inevitable, but shouldn't be counted quite the same is humanitarian disaster relief. How much development assistance (the category of aid most people usually think of) is given out by the US each year? Japan and most of Europe give out far more than the US in terms of % of GDP and, in some cases, absolute dollars.

But that is the strawman that we can blame for our budget crisis! Stop trying to take away the easy non-answers!

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Aadik

Fair enough- I can see the arguement in that. But if a dictator was willing to toe US line on external foreign policy- would he really have an issue with it ? Can you cite me any potential examples that meet your criteria of the US keeping warlords in check - I don't really see any beyond Afghanistan- which is a different story.

Much of Africa and Afghanistan are current instances of the warlord problem. Other spots like Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt and Turkey would have their governments probably buckle to islamic fundamentalists if we completed pulled out all support and eliminated the threat of US military force.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Arles

Much of Africa and Afghanistan are current instances of the warlord problem. Other spots like Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt and Turkey would have their governments probably buckle to islamic fundamentalists if we completed pulled out all support and eliminated the threat of US military force.

And how much aid do you think Africa gets from the US ? the places where the warlord problem exists is in Sudan and Somalia- where the US isnt doing anything.. As for Saudi Arabia- well, the biggest beef of the Islamists there is the presence of Americans in the holy land. Turkey gets little in the way of US aid, and has a secular history and secular military with deep roots- and Egypt's aid is wholly linked to the 73 Peace accords- and much of it is military- the US army isnt going to intervene there.

Again- this seems like you're claiming a point, without any evidence to back it up.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

Drama queen

Post of the Month!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Aadik

Fucking laughable is your thought process and your inability to comprehend the point- but that's another issue altogether.

Oh good, you decided to drop the whole "thoughtful" routine.
Now I can rid myself of you without any real guilt. Buh-bye.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Subby

Just poking my head in here to see if JIMGA had threatened to kill anybody yet.

Carry on...

Oh goody, more trolling.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Aadik

And how much aid do you think Africa gets from the US ? the places where the warlord problem exists is in Sudan and Somalia- where the US isnt doing anything.. As for Saudi Arabia- well, the biggest beef of the Islamists there is the presence of Americans in the holy land. Turkey gets little in the way of US aid, and has a secular history and secular military with deep roots- and Egypt's aid is wholly linked to the 73 Peace accords- and much of it is military- the US army isnt going to intervene there.

Again- this seems like you're claiming a point, without any evidence to back it up.

No, it seems that you simply do not like the evidence I provided. If the US adopted a new isolationist strategy to Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Turkey and Afghanistan, it would take very little time for each of these areas to become run by islamic fundamentalists. Without US intervention, it would have probably already occurred. Look at the two areas US has had little involvement with (Iran and pre-9/11 Iraq) and compare those to the two areas where we have the most involvement (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia). Think there is no difference between those two sets of governments?

For a perfect example of this, compare the pre and post-9/11 Afghanistan government.

If the US leaves the middle east and parts of Africa, there will be nothing to prevent the collapse of non-islamic fundamentalist governments in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Syria and the many others. And once that happened, we would then be relying on the UN to police these new terrorist states

[Subby]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Oh goody, more trolling.

Just take a deep breath, killer

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Arles

No, it seems that you simply do not like the evidence I provided. If the US adopted a new isolationist strategy to Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Turkey and Afghanistan, it would take very little time for each of these areas to become run by islamic fundamentalists. Without US intervention, it would have probably already occurred. Look at the two areas US has had little involvement with (Iran and pre-9/11 Iraq) and compare those to the two areas where we have the most involvement (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia). Think there is no difference between those two sets of governments?

For a perfect example of this, compare the pre and post-9/11 Afghanistan government.

If the US leaves the middle east and parts of Africa, there will be nothing to prevent the collapse of non-islamic fundamentalist governments in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Syria and the many others. And once that happened, we would then be relying on the UN to police these new terrorist states

I see you're now translating islamic nation = terrorist. nice.

That being said, you have provided no evidence that Turkey's long secular history is somehow threatened by the absence of the US- am I supposed to believe the heavily secular army will topple over, because you say so ? And Iraw was many things- but calling it a Islamic fundementalist government is bullshit- Saddamm was an opportunistic bastard- not an Islamist. Syria's problem is almost entirely with Israel and the Golan Heights- and is hardly a bastion of US influence. As for Iran, you conveniently forget that Iran turned to Islamic fundementalism because of US support for a shah who was by all accounts a despot- a reaction, not a cause. I've pointed out the issue to you in Saudia Arabia about American troops - the Wahibbi's bitch primarily about that, and yet you seem to use it evidence to support the checking of fundementalism ? All you're offering is conjecture in these cases- how on Earth is US support the reason that they're not Islamic- when in most cases, it seems to be the cause of thier Islamic lurch ?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Aadik

I see you're now translating islamic nation = terrorist. nice.

Then you aren't reading very well. Nowhere did I say that an islamic nation = terrorist. I stated that the countries with a great deal of fundamenalist islamic populations will have a much more difficult time in preventing them from gaining power from their current governments if the US was not involved.

If you feel that the US presence in the Middle East does not help prevent countries like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Egypt, Kuwait and others from being over-run by fundamentalists then so be it. I think an unfettered Middle East could be disasterous towards the safety of the US. But maybe I am in the minority there.

Arlie

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Arles

If the US leaves the middle east and parts of Africa, there will be nothing to prevent the collapse of non-islamic fundamentalist governments in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Syria and the many others. And once that happened, we would then be relying on the UN to police these new terrorist states

That's the line I was referencing Arlie.- it seems to imply that those governments would be replaced by "terrorist" states.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Aadik

That's the line I was referencing Arlie.- it seems to imply that those governments would be replaced by "terrorist" states.

to assume otherwise would be pretty dumb, in my opinion. who's the most likely source of leadership to appear in those countries during a power struggle? A moderate, pro-democracy individual, a secular dictator, or a fundamentalist Islamic dictatorial type?