BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Sep 02 - 12:45 PM

If the world's defenders of freedom and basic human dignity such as the United States do not put their foot down and stop fanatical lunatics like Saddam Hussein, Al Qaeda, the Talliban, etc., who are hell-bent on forcing the rest of the world to embrace their beliefs and bow to Allah or die as infidels, then who will?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Sep 02 - 11:12 AM

troll: There have also been reports in the Washington Post within the last week or so of "sources within the administration" stating that profits from the sales of Iraq's oil could be used to reimburse the US for the costs of the War, which some estimate at as much as $200B!

Now, one would think, that if the US could justifyt making the Iraqi people pay for the US coming over and killing them, then it's not too far a stretch, to see an oilman President figure out a way for his buddies to continue getting their hands on the booty.

After all, to the victors go the spoils.

Now, there is one more scenerio that has not been discussed too much here and that is, "*What if* the US looses the war? This is a very interesting question.

Sure, The US could have used nuclear weapons in Vietnam and paved it but it lost because the Vietnamese people dug in and fought a gurilla war. What if the Iraqi's do the same? Sure, they can be beaten because of the supply issues but at what cost to the image of the US? If they dig in there are only two scenerios and neither presents the US with a victory any more than nuking Vietnam would have been a victory.

Scenerio 1: The US has to figth block by block against an enemy that looks pretty much like everyone else. In this case, the US is going to rack up a lot of casualties and collaterial damage that will quickly make it out to look as if the war was not well thought out.

Scenerio 2: The US can take everyhting In Iraq and force most of the Iraqi's into Bagdad and other populotion centers and starve them out. Now given Saddam's poor track record on his treatment of his own folks, guess who will be getting the bulk of the food and medical attention? His staff and his army. So the reality is that this approach will make the US look real, real bad.

No victory in either of these likable scenerios.

You know, the more one looks at this situation the more hopeless it looks since Bush so desperately wants his war and his folks want this war and it looks so much like he's gonna have his war come Hell of high water. He's got a lot of folks afraid to even speak up or to dare tell a pollster they are against the war. Man, when the American people are browbeat into submission at such a critical time it does not bode well for the future of democracy. It is critical that folks take a stand today because evry day you remain silent is one more day the Bush and Co. think you're in total agreement with their regime.

There can be no winner if the US attacks Iraq.

Peace thru resistence

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Sep 02 - 08:24 AM

Israel has an estimated 200 nuclear weapons. I would imagine Saddam is more likely to blow his brains out with a revolver than use any nuclear weapons he might conceivably have on Israel.

And America has some 6000 nuclear weapons...

I get the feeling that some people have lost touch with reality about this kind of thing. There is no reason whatsoever to expect that Saddam is going to launch any kind of attack on anybody outside his own borders, and no reeason to think that his overthrowal will make it in any way reduce the possibility of major terrorist attacks in the rest of the world.

The central reasons for trying to get rid of him appear to be a)he is an extremely unpleasant dictator; and b) his presence interferes with the availability of Iraq's oil resources. Since those aren't things that would permit of a legal attack, other reasons to do with self-defence have to be paraded.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Troll
Date: 30 Sep 02 - 07:36 AM

The problem is, as I see it, what happens if we DON'T stop Saddam? What happens when he DOES get nuclear devices?
That's what worries me. If we- or someone- doesn't stop his WMD program now, before we have ironclad proof of its existance, it may well be that our first bit of proof will come when he uses nuclear blackmail to take over his neighbors or slags down Tel Aviv.
Then we will be well and truly in deep trouble.
I'd like more and better proof but how much proof do we need?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: kendall
Date: 30 Sep 02 - 06:44 AM

The past is prolog. We are quite able to make a parking lot out of Iraq; But, I guarantee it will only make things worse. Just look at Israel and the Palistinians; they have been taking revenge on each other for half a century, and we are headed down the same road.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Troll
Date: 30 Sep 02 - 06:39 AM

Stating categorically that one of the reasons that Bush wants war with Iraq is so he can control 15% of the worlds oil reserves is exactaly the same as Bush saying that Saddam is building WMDs. There's no proof for either statement.
If there is proof of the oil accusation, bring it out- not "I think" or supposition or "it stands to reason- but actual proof.
If that cannot be supplied then Bush'e accusations are just as valid as yours Bobert.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Sep 02 - 05:39 AM

More often than not the process of extending an empire is described as "liberation". Napoleon was a "liberator", and so was Stalin in Eastern Europe; so were the British in Africa; the Americans in the Philippines...

And in a sense this was partly accurate - but the other part makes a bit of a difference.

Assuming I don't want to be understood as anti-American, which comes across as more hostile - to say that Bush is un-American or to say that he is not?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Hrothgar
Date: 30 Sep 02 - 04:22 AM

I keep telling myself - Abraham Lincoln was a Republican ..........

Something has come unstuck here.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 30 Sep 02 - 01:36 AM

Aye, Mary---the Iraqis have a right to be free; but not "free" like the young protesters who were rounded up and jailed the other day in the USA for daring to show opposition to Globalisation and the dangerous power of the big banks. We all want peace---but an imposed "pax Americana" of the Bush-Cheney -Ashcroft-Bushietail Blair variety is NOT what the world wants.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Amos
Date: 30 Sep 02 - 12:20 AM

Pooka:

This being kinda cooling weatherm shouldn't light a small test fire to make sure that damper draws okay?

I'ld a thunk in this age of high-flown anti-terrorist tactics it would be the patriotic thing tuh do!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: The Pooka
Date: 30 Sep 02 - 12:01 AM

DonMeixner, us guys in the Muddled Middle are being Left behind, Right? / Now you take me. (But not literally. Please.) I was PRO-war on Vietnam---but of course I didn't go & fight, did I? No. / I too support separation of church & state; but then what am I supposed to say about the politico-clerical arrangements in my beloved Republic of Ireland that I'm always yammering about, now I ask you. / And I'm not too sure that *I* believe in my right to bear arms, being a rather Poorly-Regulated Militia meself. Then again, while you were training yer 1884 Springfield on the Man in Black across the street, I was seriously considering the potential application of my 1995 Taurus .357 Magnum to the noisy terrorist cell of raccoons up the chimbley. Fortunately the Wife dryly pointed out that hollowpoint rounds will ricochet off of bricks & hit me in the arse, or even warse; & that furthermore the local constabulary would take a very dim view. So I decided to Give Peace a Chance. // Which I hope Dubya, or his Puppeteer, does, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Amos
Date: 29 Sep 02 - 11:53 PM

There is no question that both Bushes and Ashcroft are legally and biologically "Americans". And let us be very chary of starting a New Wave of Investigating Un-americanism, Senator!

But the telling question is whether their short-term decision making supports the actual principles of the nation or erodes and compromises them in some way.

At this time I have seen no evidence to dissuade me that the answer is a resounding affirmative: GH, GW, and Ashcroft are participating in a severe compromise of American ideals and statutory principles. Unfortunately and ironically, this is a typically American thing to do.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: DonMeixner
Date: 29 Sep 02 - 11:38 PM

This tough for me. I am probably like most Americans in my political views. Pretty down the middle in most things.

I was anti-war during Viet Nam. I support freedom of choice and separation of Church and State. I strongly agree with my right to bear arms. And my right as an American to assemble and speak my unpopular mind anytime I choose.

Now I sit back in amazed fascination as I hear the Peace freaks from the 60's saying we have to blow up the Evil Arab Terrorists and Pat Buchannan saying we have no business in the desert, stay home.

I am afraid of Bush. I think he is a windbag in someones pocket. I think he is still unsure where most of Asia is located. And I think he can't speak for himself without he becomes tongue tied. I do think he is just bright enough to be a good puppet and do what ever his string man tells him to do and say.

Who is the man (men) with the strings? My guess is it is George Herbert Bush and more importantly John Ashcroft. Look at the Patriot Act. The congress and senate as my representitives are being asked to sign away my promised rights as stated in the constitution. Fear of the terrorists is their justification and won't I give up some rights so the government can serve me better.

Ashcroft fascinates me. How was he placed in a high position in government? Especially when people in his home state found it wiser to reelect a deadman than vote Ashcroft into office. The locals must know something us out of towners don't.

At any rate pretty soon I'll be sitting in my living room when the house comes under attack. But who will I be shooting with my black powder 1884 45-70 Trapdoor Springfield. The Al Quida guy in the back yard or the guy in sunglasses across the street watch me through the strap door in the business section of his New York Times?

Is Bush un American? Possibly not, but his advisors and he certainly need a civics lesson on what a government of, for, and by the people really means.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Sep 02 - 11:02 PM

Like Daddy -- Like Son?

Oh, I want a war, just like the war, that dear ol' daddy had...

Anyhoo -- does anyone know where I could find a midi file and lyrics for "Somebody Play Dixie For Me?"

I hope.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Sep 02 - 11:00 PM

Bruce: Works fine for me! Winner take all! No, heck no! Junior couldn;t fight his way out of a wet paper bag. How about Cheney fighting Saddam? No, that ain;t gonna go to well with Cheney's heart condition... Danged, how about Powell? He mnight take Saddam btu he;s not exactly a shoe in either. I don't know....

Mary: What's wrong with the term "imperialism". Half the reasons that Bush wants to go to war with Iraq is to secure 15% of the world's oil reserves. Sounds like "imperialistic" thinkng to me...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Amos
Date: 29 Sep 02 - 10:58 PM

GIVE 'EM HAYULL, MOLLY!!!

Thanks, Pooka!!

A clarion, that girl. A positive clarion!!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 29 Sep 02 - 10:54 PM

RAVE ON BOBERT!!! YOU DA MAN!!!

What say we get Dubya and SH in a boxing ring and let 'em duke it out between themselves? Leave the rest of us out of it. Just don't hurt ole Dubya too bad or that Cheney fucker would become Prez. Talk about the fryin' pan and the fire!

Bruce
(aka Bee-dubya-ell who is finding it increasingly distressing to share middle initials with a certain Texan)

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: mg
Date: 29 Sep 02 - 10:51 PM

and how exactly are those neighbors going to defeat it? And it is nuts to call it imperialism because going into Iraq, which I don't know enough of all the pros and cons to make a statement about its feasibility, is not imperialism. It would ultimately, hopefully, be liberation. Big difference. Maybe the price would be too high for us or for the Iraqis hoping to be free. I don't know. But let's get our labels at least right. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 29 Sep 02 - 10:45 PM

But ummmmmmmm.... hey uhhhhhh ......Bobert?

Bush's popularity is so high,... right?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Sep 02 - 10:23 PM

yep, that is the story and here are the alernatives. This is the *real deal*. George Bush is spending $200M on PR for his war. Hmmmmmmmm? That;s more than the annual budgets for some Third World countries *just* to convince Americans that the US needs to invade a country that could be defeated by most any one it its neighbors.

Like they say, if you tell a lie often and loud enough someone will belive it. $200M. That's a lot of loud, loud lies! Lots! And who paid for the PR work???? The American taxpayers, thats who!!!!

Yeah, $200M to shove anti-humanism, Satanic crap down your throats. Makes my poor ol' Wes Ginny butt sick....

And whoes signing the checks (covered by our tax bucks) a man who was not even elected to the office for which he STOLE!!!! That's who.....

Peace thru Resistence

Bobert

Subject: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: The Pooka
Date: 29 Sep 02 - 09:57 PM

Since we've had such a dearth of political discussion lately (oy!), I'm posting 2 recent columns---From the Left & From the Right---printed in my local paper. I agree, in large measure, with both of them. Yes, I do. Anyone else?

An Un-American Plan For World Domination
Molly Ivins
September 27 2002

No. This is not acceptable. This is not the country we want to be. This is not the world we want to make.

The United States of America is still run by its citizens. The government works for us. Rank imperialism and warmongering are not American traditions or values.

"The National Security Strategy of the United States - 2002" is repellent, unnecessary and, above all, impractical. All the experts tell us anti-Americanism thrives on the perception that we are arrogant, that we care nothing for what the rest of the world thinks. Even our innocent mistakes are often blamed on obnoxious triumphalism. The announced plan of this administration for world domination reinforces every paranoid, anti-American prejudice on this earth. This plan is guaranteed to produce more terrorists. Even if this country were to become some insane 21st-century version of Sparta - armed to teeth, guards on every foot of our borders - we would still not be safe. Have the Israelis been able to stop terrorism with their tactics?

Not only would we not be safe, we would not have a nickel left for schools or health care or roads or parks or zoos or gardens or universities or mass transit or senior centers or the arts or anything resembling civilization. This is nuts.

This creepy, un-American document has a pedigree going back to Bush I, when - surprise! - Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz were at the Department of Defense and both such geniuses that they not only didn't see the collapse of the Soviet Union coming, they didn't believe it after they saw it.

In those days, this plan for permanent imperial adventurism was called "Defense Strategy for the 1990s" and was supposed to be a definitive response to the Soviet threat. Then the Soviet threat disappeared, and the same plan re-emerged as a response to the post-Soviet world.

It was roundly criticized at the time, its manifest weaknesses attacked by both right and left. Now it is back as the answer to post-Sept. 11. Sort of like the selling of the Bush tax cut - needed in surplus, needed in deficit, needed for rain and shine - the plan exists apart from rationale.

As Frances Fitzgerald points out in the Sept. 26 New York Review of Books, its most curious feature is the combination of triumphalism and almost unmitigated pessimism. Until last week, when the thing was re-released in its new incarnation, it contained no positive goals for American foreign policy, not one. Now the plan is tricked out with rhetoric like earrings on a pig about extending freedom, democracy and prosperity to the world. But as The New York Times said, "It sounds more like a pronouncement that the Roman Empire or Napoleon might have produced."

In what is indeed a dangerous and uncertain world, we need the cooperation of other nations as never before. Under this doctrine, we claim the right to first-strike use of nuclear weapons and "unannounced pre-emptive strikes." That means surprise attacks. Happy Pearl Harbor Day. We have just proclaimed ourselves Bully of the World.

There is a better way. Foreign policy experts polled at the end of the 20th century agreed the great triumph of the past 100 years in foreign policy was the Marshall Plan. We can use our strength to promote our interests through diplomacy, economic diplomacy, multilateral institutions (which we dominate anyway) and free trade conditioned to benefit all.

None of this will make al Qaeda love us, but will make it a lot more likely that whoever finds them will hand them over.

This reckless, hateful and ineffective approach to the rest of the world has glaring weaknesses. It announces that we intend to go in and take out everybody else's nukes (27 countries have them) whenever we feel like it. Meanwhile, we're doing virtually nothing to stop their spread.

Last month, Ted Turner's Nuclear Threat Initiative ponied up $5 million to get poorly secured weapons-grade uranium out of Belgrade. Privatizing disarmament - why didn't we think of that before?

Molly Ivins is a syndicated writer in Texas.
Copyright 2002, Hartford Courant