You can find it here.

There are some extremely troublesome and worrying things in it.



Honestly, someone tell me -- is he bipolar? Schizophrenic? What day of fire? What is this day of fire that requires us to be the pricks of the world? This is way too sensationalistic and reminiscent of the kind of speech Hitler and others used.



What the hell is this?! How does he figure? Why the preemptive attitude toward entire regions of the world? What happened to trust? People hate America because America doesn't trust anybody. Talk like THIS is what makes people hate us.



This is the scariest thing I've ever heard from someone in such a position of power in a long time. First of all, common sense tells us that we need to mess with other countries?! What is that about? He keeps making it out like America is in great peril or something. He is spreading LIES. Our liberty does not depend on the liberty of any other country. Seriously, he has gone off his rocker.



Oh.. uh huh. Now we have a "calling". Well, you can count me out of this sick "calling."



Very troubling. So it is now the policy of the US to bully any country it feels like under the pretense of ending tyrrany. What a load of crock. If you want tyranny, it can be found in America's attitude and actions toward other countries.

And the extent to which America will go to to enforce this "policy" is left open-ended. Troubling indeed.



Uh huh. The only time force is necessary is when your country is in direct danger. Which it is NOT. Furthermore, I think Bush would be quite surprised to learn that the "soul" of his country is far from where he thinks it is. This country won't stand for a whole lot more meddling in foreign affairs. I think he is slightly out of touch with reality. A lot of people do not back his vision. A lot of people are fed up with his war mongering and threatening speech.



That's questionable. America has in the past and continues to this day to impose arbitrary governments on various countries which often fail. IT IS NOT AMERICA'S RESPONSIBILITY TO "HELP" OTHER COUNTRIES "MAKE THEIR OWN WAY".



Again, troubling. "The difficulty of the task is no excuse for avoiding it." Well, I have news for you; the ambiguity of the task is the perfect excuse to avoid it. The fact that he mentions America's influence and the way it will be used raises ethical concerns. This is really freaky stuff.



Protecting this nation does not require borderline psychotic foreign policy.



Right and wrong, blah blah blah. More sensationalism and demonization of other countries. And Americans wonder why they are hated. The fact that another country is a dictatorship DOES NOT GRANT AMERICA THE RIGHT TO DENOUNCE THEIR FORM OF GOVERNMENT OR EMPLOY ACTION AGAINST THEM.



Right, so why don't you listen to your own damn country?



I'm sure Abe meant by God's doing. He wouldn't have dreamed of the incredible pervasiveness and lack of respect for established countries that our president has today. Abe was talking about karma, not some fascist world police-state.



This portion of the speech makes me chuckle. Time and time again, America has demonstrated that it DOES NOT honor our friendships, it DOES NOT rely on the counsel of other countries, and with the exception of Britain, it DOES NOT rely on the help of other countries. I'm willing to wager this is because other countries have common sense.

Finally, by his own definition, Bush is an enemy to freedom, since he has aided in the division among free nations.



Newsflash, Mr. Bush: our patience is growing /very/ thin. You do NOT have much of a larger supply of it. If you do ANYTHING other than get our troops the HELL out of Iraq as SOON as POSSIBLE, you will find that it has been all but exhausted. People will forcibly remove you from power, if you try ANY OTHER FUNNY BUSINESS. I vow to do whatever I can to peacibly remove you from office if you play policeman of the world, and many other of your citizens share in this sentiment.

Things are getting serious, and if America does any more stupid stuff, I just fear for the sake of the world. His outlook on the world is highly disturbing, and it should disturb many of you as well.



Ohhhhh.... ohhhhh.... Mr. Bush, I have seen the duty and determination of the US soldiers. Your point? That doesn't mean squat if they aren't fighting for the right thing. Evil is ral? BS. That's been your damn theme all these years. Evil is relative. There's no need to label other people in such a manner so as to garner support for your cause. Again with the sensationalism.



Finally -- and this is where I will end it: Mr. Bush. That is the grave concern here. There is a hell of a lot of work to do in YOUR OWN DAMN COUNTRY. Why don't you get off your damn soap box and work on improving YOUR OWN DAMN COUNTRY, of which you are PRESIDENT.

The rest of his speech is just sensationalistic rhetoric. I'm telling you -- there is a need to be concerned here. Sensible American people will only be pushed so far. We know whats TRULY right, and it's sure as hell not the president's agenda.

Does he write his own speeches?

If he reads it, he endorses it. He knows what kind of clout he has.

There is a 5% chance that he actually does write his speeches. I have to agree that some of that stuff was border-line freaky. That "day of fire" line somehow kept reminding me of Return of the King.

I didnt' get to catch much at all. Some people were watching during lunch, but I was out our new "Ideas" Club (discuss morality, ethics, etc.)

I thought it was a good speech.

yeah don't **** with america!!!!!

Oh, so you don't agree with him is the essence I'm getting from most your critique. A different viewpoint.


I'm sure millions of people said the same stuff at Clinton's, etc.


Maybe you should do something about your grave concerns instead of typing it in a Jedi Knight forums.

By day of fire, I would think it's obvious he's referring to 9/11. Skimmed the rest, Bush is scary yadda yadda yadda. Nothing new revealed in this speech.

Not simply a different viewpoint -- a word of warning and proclamation that many Americans are fed up with the policies of a madman. We just want peace.

Duh, but he says it as if 9/11 is a justification for his actions or something, which it obviously is not.

Half of American voters also apparently supported his policies. How do you explain that?

Because half of the people who voted for him did so because Bush is a better Christian than Kerry on issues such as abortion and stem cell research, and they don't give a **** about the rest of the world, which is put in jeopardy by Bush's policies. The religious right at work here, ignorant of what's at stake.

Congratulations, your credibitlity went right out the window.

Yeah? Well yours went out the window a long time ago.

I'm with Demon_Nightmare on that.
(I'm going to leave it at that because I'd rather not talk about politics at the moment.)

its a democracy, and the majority reigns soverign. Bush won the majority, so people must have wanted him more.

I don't care about the election. I care about what Bush is going to do now. Besides, Page, just because they "want" him doesn't mean they want him in for the right reasons, as I said in your quote.

What are these right reasons? (curious)

Domestic and foreign policy, of course. Religion should not even play a role in determining the president. Why should it? Theocracies are some of the worst styles of governments ever created.

just b/c people don't support abortion or stem cell research does not necessarily mean that they are religious. it is likely, yes, but not always the case.

I don't support EMBRYONIC stem cell research b/c it has yet to produce anything but cancer when implanted. I fully support Adult stem cell research, b/c adult stem cells show more promise and are harvested with the consent of the donor. The embryos are unable to give consent, so is it truly justified to harvest cells from them?

Dude, we all know you hate Bush. I happen to agree with him on some of what he's saying. And in case you haven't noticed, the meddling in other country's business in not new and exclusive to the Bush administration. It's been part of the US culture for about our entire existance, save for brief periods of civl war and isolationism. Does that make it right, that depends on your view point. You'll say no. Others will say yes.

But what if domestic policy (or foreign) violates people's beliefs - whether that be religion or just plain morals.

Can we not use religion to help us decide, but use ethics instead? Or we shouldn't use morals and ethics either since we've been shoved that down our throats by our parents since we were born.


Hate to break it to you - but you can not be religious at all and still be against abortion.

"The religious right?"

Why not write your speeches about the left movement as well that's trying to take religion out of public places?

Oh, because you have one viewpoint and fail to see the US is a country of DIVERSIFIED people who have different beliefs.

That's simply not so. Aside from WWI, America was fairly isolationist until the Cold War. WWII doesn't count because America was literally threatened. This rigorous foreign policy has only been in effect since post-WWII. And Avenger, I didn't do this because I "hate" Bush. Since no one has even bothered to refute any of my original points, I will just assume we are all in agreement, then.

What I'm saying is basing your entire vote on the petty issues -- abortion, stem cell research, is incredibly short-sighted considering what's at stake.

US Expansion across the continent
Mexican-American War
Spanish American War
WWI

period of isolationism due to depression until WWII

After WWII, "meddling" with other countries up the wazoo
Cold War
Containment of communism (Korea and Vietnam)
Grenada
Nircaragua
Desert Storm
Somolia
Beruit
Bosnia

Check your US history again if you think the US doesn't have history of being heavily involved with what happens in other countries.

I say again, this sort of policy is not new and exclusive the the administraion of George W. Bush.

WTH? Did you even /read/ my post? You just said exactly what I did.

I think I'm confused What were the orignal points?

The things I said in my original post. For some reason, people seemed to ignore those points, which I figured would be the controversial ones, and attacked me on trivial issues such as isolationism, the election, and religion.

I just viewed those as more opinion and ranting. Can't say I really agreed with your thinking in that.

Well, ignoring sound points is your perrogative. For someone who "doesn't want to talk about politics", you sure seem interested, though.

Just because we don't refute your original post point by point does not mean "we're in agreement" (referring to anyone agreeing with you)

If you had valid arguments it would be a good debate. Since lots seem very "left minded" and just opinionated insults- there is no point in debating or refuting.

No matter what I or anyone else says on here will change your beliefs - since you already know all the reasons that people reelected Bush in the first place.

it's like chocolate....it's a weakness. I didn't even know I was doing it up until right now...

I didn't really see them as sound though. I could go through and probably argue most, but I don't really see a point. To me it just appeared to be opinion and what I hear daily from the random people on my campus.

You people didn't even read it.

So, you think America has followed the counsel of other countries, as the speech claims, for example? I'm astonished at how you can believe that to be true. Please explain.

Actually I read the entire thing.

"And all the allies of the United States can know: We honor your friendship, we rely on your counsel, and we depend on your help."

It says rely, not follow. (not the same thing)

Close enough. Again, why is it that you think unilaterally invading Iraq against the wishes of the UN is akin to "relying on the counsel of other countries"?

It's like relying on your friend's advice. If you think it's bad, you'll smile and probably do the opposite of what they said. (I'm not really a big fan of the UN so, yeah...)

But that's not relying on your friend's advice, by definition. American anti-UN sentiment is extremely amusing and unfounded, too. God, I can't wait until Europe wakes up to help me out. Where are you, Mort?

Nothing new here. Just comes to confirm that bush is fanatical and borderline psychotic, and that those of you who elected him are even worse.

Ah, thank god. Finally a voice of reason.

In any case, you're pretty much wasting your time. Those who don't already agree with you won't be changing their minds for anything.