BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3 (Bush, Iraq)

Subject: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Amos
Date: 05 Sep 02 - 07:48 PM

This is part 3 of this discussion.

Part 2 can be found over at this place..

In our lasy episode Bobert and DougR were eyeing eachother coldly, hands hovering over their holsters, while Kendal stood nearby blowing the smoke away from the barrel of his Winchester rifle, and various townspeople looked on nervously....

---

Search for "Bush, Iraq" threads

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: NicoleC
Date: 05 Sep 02 - 08:07 PM

Doug,

Just a bit of clarification of your views for me, okay? I'm confused.

Do you think that:
a) Iraq is worhty of attack because George says so, and he's infallible
b) Ira a) Iraq is worthy of attack because they are inherently "evil"
b) Iraq is worthy of attack to soley protect our oil supply
c) Iraq is worthy of attack because they might have WMD's
d) Iraq is worthy of attack IF it's proven that they DO have WMDs
e) Iraq is worthy of attack IF it can be shown that Iraq/Saddam presents an imminent danger to the US and/or our allies
f) Iraq os worthy of attack IF it can be shown that Iraq/Saddam presents an imminent danger to the US only

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: GUEST,Just Amy
Date: 05 Sep 02 - 08:34 PM

My Friend Greg has just been called up (National Guard)even though he is on the bottom of the list of people who should be called up (short time left, age, not an officer). What is the President doing? I'm busy sending out emails to my Senators. This is very scary to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Sep 02 - 08:59 PM

Danged, Dougie. I like this one that Nicole has come up with. When I was in college and didn't know the answer to a miltiple-guess test, I'd always pick C. But that's all the halp you're gonna get from me. Hey, quit lookin' at mu paper... Danged

Now there is another thread which I am not going to post on that I started that was supposed to be more about the shifting geopolitical map where I believe you have been mixin' it up over Clinton and Though I'm not much of a Clinton fan myself I would like to point out just one observation.

Clinton worked tirelessly on trying to bring some peace and stability to the Middle East. I don't think that can be refuted. In doing so, America's message was, "We care". Now did he solve the problems in the Middle East. No. But no one can say he didn't do his best.

Then along comes, ahhhhh, well, you know... Mr Bush. Well, Bush thinks he got elected to do the opposite of everything Clinton had done. Wrong. First of all he didn't get elected but history will prove that out so there's no use in qyibblung over that especially since you are not willing to examine the vast evidence.

Bit the second thing that Bush and Co. did was turn their back on the Middle East and in doing so the message changed from "We care" to "We don't care". And the longer we *didn't care* the worse things got. Our noncaring, isolationist foriegn policy caught up with the US big time on 9/11.

Hey, ol' Bobbert is here to say that what happened on 9/11 was a pretty evil thing but we can not be held blameless. When a country holds up a big "We Don't Care About You' sign to folks who allready have serios issues we shouldn't be too darned surprised when they bite.

So, yeah, I'll agree with you that Clinton had his flaws but they were personal in nature but when it came to paying attention to the rest of the world, he was attentive. Your guy, on the other hand was too busy with his energy policy, written by 43 of his closest oil frineds. And isn't it curious that here he finds himself locked in a stalmate with another oilman in Iraq.

Hmmmmmmm. Food for thought...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 05 Sep 02 - 10:16 PM

In 1981 when the Israelis bombed the Baghdad Nuclear Reactor, the world condemned the action, the US stopped some arms shipments to Israel for a while (although most of the west tacitly approved). By the time the GUlf war came around they were certainly glad it had been done. (of course why did an oil rich nation need a nuclear reactor)

(if it was 1981 and we could discuss, whether the Israelis should go in and take out the reactor, I wonder what the general consensus would be) (of course it is totally different than attacking a country...)

I dont have an answer as to whether or not the US should attack or depose Saddam, the opportunity was there in 91 but supposedly they didnt want to leave a power vacuum, (and have to deal with setting up or partitioning a state)

Then again, at the end of ww2 the US occupied Japan and helped establish a democratic and stable nation.

(maybe they should use the E-bomb (if it exists) supposedly being developed by the Brits which sends out a massive electromagnetic pulse and knocks out electrical systems etc. without any human casualties)

Last October there were discussions on whether or not the US should go into Afghanistan. A lot of people strongly opposed it, because its a quagmire or the history (no ones ever conquered Afghanistan etc), although I predicted (correctly) that the Taliban would collapse within 2 months. WHile there were many innocent lives lost, I think most Afghanis are better off, and there is now an attempt to establish and stabilize a govt.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Sep 02 - 10:30 PM

Afganistan is far from a stable country with warloards still plotting against each other and nothern alliance folks stull oppressing the Pustan's in the south. Unless the US spends a ton of money there and stays for the next 30 years, with the possibility of UN peace keeping forces to keep the internal warring factions from each others thoats, then this country will remain on the verge of reversing course and returning to the ways of old. There are a few generations of wounds that need healing.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Amos
Date: 05 Sep 02 - 10:51 PM

Japan was homogenous with very little variance in "race". Afghanistan is a loosely organized concatenation of intensely tribal groups. Big diff.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: NicoleC
Date: 05 Sep 02 - 10:54 PM

Fortunately, I think in the case of Afghanistan we've learned our lesson. We bailed out of the country when we didn't need it anymore, left it in shambles, and it came back to bite us. I think there's a pretty broad base of support for a mini-Marshall Plan, to help prevent the same kind of destabalization. For now. If we don't stick it out, lord help us. Since we are also finally getting what we've wanted from Afghanistan for the past 20 years, namely a big fat gas pipeline (don't get me started!), I think the US will stick around at least as long as the gas holds out.

For the moment, though, the average Afghani is not really any better off and many are much, much worse -- being homeless, widowed or orphaned comes to mind. And the situation seems unlikely to improve at all in terms of women's and children's welfare -- the Northern Alliance is as anti-everything-not-male as the Taliban was.

The US doesn't care if the standing government is brutal and repressive, only that it's stable and friendly to US business interests.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: GUEST,Richard H
Date: 05 Sep 02 - 11:19 PM

Interesting articles on news.bbc.co.uk today. Afghans disillusioned and more or less giving up on ever having a stable country. Intense rivalry between warlords now armed to the teeth by USA. President nearly assassinated, saved by his US bodyguards.

Bush and Blair meeting this weekend to decide who will take over from Saddam. Doesn't this look kinda weird - the gov't of a country being chosen by two foreign leaders?

Intruder spotted in USA's biggest storage facility for nerve gas and chemical weapons (Ohio? Utah?). Surely this isn't being kept for use on humans?

Safe bet: if, or rather when, the Americans invade Iraq, they will find weapons of mass destruction. Whether or not Saddam ever had them.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: NicoleC
Date: 05 Sep 02 - 11:32 PM

"Safe bet: if, or rather when, the Americans invade Iraq, they will find weapons of mass destruction. Whether or not Saddam ever had them."

LOL Richard! I won't bet against that!

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: katlaughing
Date: 05 Sep 02 - 11:42 PM

Bush needs to be removed from office. He's not even going to wait. Blair needs to have his head examined. This is from the news-telegraph.com/uk:

100 jets join attack on Iraq
By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 06/09/2002)


About 100 American and British aircraft took part in an attack on Iraq's major western air defence installation yesterday in the biggest single operation over the country for four years.

The raid appeared to be a prelude to the type of special forces operations that would have to begin weeks before a possible American-led war. It was launched two days before a war summit between President George W Bush and Tony Blair in America.

The Prime Minister promised that Britain would be alongside the Americans "when the shooting starts".

The raid seemed designed to destroy air defences to allow easy access for special forces helicopters to fly into Iraq via Jordan or Saudi Arabia to hunt down Scud missiles before a possible war within the next few months.

Although only 12 aircraft dropped precision-guided bombs on to the H3 airfield, 240 miles west of Baghdad and close to Jordan, many support aircraft took part.

The strikes were carried out by nine American F15 Strike Eagles and three RAF Tornado GR4 ground attack aircraft flying from Kuwait.

At least seven types of aircraft took part. Fighter cover was provided by US F-16 Fighting Falcons and RAF Tornado F3s from Saudi Arabia. RAF VC10 tanker aircraft flying from Bahrain were among the support aircraft.

These also included EA6b Prowlers, which send out signals to confuse enemy radar, and E3a Awacs aircraft that co-ordinate operations and carry out reconnaissance of any response.

RAF Tornados also took part in the reconnaissance. American central command refused to go into detail about the number of aircraft involved in the raid.

It said: "Coalition strikes in the no-fly zones are executed as a self-defence measure in response to Iraqi hostile threats and acts against coalition forces and their aircraft."

The Pentagon said that the raid was launched in "response to recent Iraqi hostile acts against coalition aircraft monitoring the southern no-fly zone".

Iraq had made 130 attempts to shoot down coalition aircraft this year.

The Ministry of Defence in London refused to confirm that RAF aircraft had taken part, but defence sources said that Tornado ground attack and reconnaissance aircraft played a key role. The attack on what the American central command described as an "air defence command and control facility" was the first time that a target in western Iraq had been attacked during the patrols of the southern no-fly zone.

Until yesterday, all strikes had been against air defence sites in the south, around Basra, Amara, Nassairya and Baghdad.

Central command said it was still assessing the damage caused by the attack. If the air defence installation was not destroyed, a second raid is expected.

As well as blinding Iraqi radar to any special forces helicopters, the loss of the H3 installation would allow allied aircraft mounting major raids on Iraq a trouble-free route into the country.

In a further sign that America was preparing for war, a Pentagon official confirmed that heavy armour, ammunition and other equipment had been moved to Kuwait from huge stores in Qatar.

Thomas White, the army secretary, said: "We have done a lot with pre-positioned stocks in the Gulf, making sure that they are in the right spot to support whatever the president wants to do."

Any war on Iraq is likely to begin with a gradual intensification of attacks on air defences. But yesterday's raid appears more likely to be related to the special forces Scud hunts.

It was the SAS which specialised in the attempts to hunt down the Scuds during the Gulf war. Although the raids were largely unsuccessful, they spawned a series of rival books by former members of the regiment.

Mr Bush, speaking in Louisville, Kentucky, said that, besides having talks with Mr Blair, he would be meeting the leaders of France, Russia, China and Canada over the next few days. He would tell them that "history has called us into action" to oust Saddam Hussein, the president of Iraq.

He said he was looking forward to the talks, but suggested that the US could do the job on its own if need be.

"I am a patient man," he said. "I've got tools; we've got tools at our disposal. We cannot let the world's worst leaders blackmail, threaten, hold freedom-loving nations hostage with the world's worst weapons."

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Amos
Date: 05 Sep 02 - 11:56 PM

"Freedom-loving" is not a word I would have chosen to describe George Bush, Jr.

They're softening the ground. This is the hardest bluff in international relations since the uSSR backed down on the Cuban missiles; or, we're about to see the first U.S.-initiated war since Teddy Roosevelt. Grim day all around, guys and gals.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: DougR
Date: 05 Sep 02 - 11:57 PM

Nicole: Happy to oblige.

a) Nope b) Ira) Nope c) Nope d) Yep e) Yep f) Nope. Not likely anyway.

I hope this helps.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: NicoleC
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 12:55 AM

I agree with e) Doug. Self defense is a good thing. I just don't think the proof is there, becaus eI don't think Saddam is that stupid. He likes being in power, and attacking us would guarentee his destruction. If there is proof, I think the folks who are paying for the war and dying for it need to see it -- namely, the citizens and soldiers of the US and allies.

I see a Joe Clone cleaned up my other two posts, unfortunately the 2nd one was formatted correctly and had the relevant follow-up bits in case you answered d) or above...

If it's just about countries with WMD, why Iraq, and not North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, numerous other gulf states, China, Turkey, India, Pakistan, most of Central America, Russia, and a large portion of the former Soviet Republics?

Deterence works with North Korea, who not only has bio and chem weapons, but nuclear ones and the ability to deliver them to the US. So why Iraq?

If Iraq, why now, when the situation in Iraq has substantially changed in years? Why NOW when we are already fighting in Afghanistan (and STILL no military exit strategy) and fighting a nebulous and expensive "war on terrorism" and need the support of the middle-eastern countries to be effective at all -- support that would vanish if we defy their wishes and attack.

(I think I said it better the first time.)

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: GUEST,Bagpuss
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 05:36 AM

And maybe we would lose....

Can't have the fingers crossed get out in a real war.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,787018,00.html

Wake-up call

If the US and Iraq do go to war, there can only be one winner, can't there? Maybe not. This summer, in a huge rehearsal of just such a conflict - and with retired Lieutenant General Paul Van Riper playing Saddam - the US lost. Julian Borger asks the former marine how he did it

Friday September 6, 2002 The Guardian

At the height of the summer, as talk of invading Iraq built in Washington like a dark, billowing storm, the US armed forces staged a rehearsal using over 13,000 troops, countless computers and $250m. Officially, America won and a rogue state was liberated from an evil dictator. What really happened is quite another story, one that has set alarm bells ringing throughout America's defence establishment and raised questions over the US military's readiness for an Iraqi invasion. In fact, this war game was won by Saddam Hussein, or at least by the retired marine playing the Iraqi dictator's part, Lieutenant General Paul Van Riper.

In the first few days of the exercise, using surprise and unorthodox tactics, the wily 64-year-old Vietnam veteran sank most of the US expeditionary fleet in the Persian Gulf, bringing the US assault to a halt.

What happened next will be familiar to anyone who ever played soldiers in the playground. Faced with an abrupt and embarrassing end to the most expensive and sophisticated military exercise in US history, the Pentagon top brass simply pretended the whole thing had not happened. They ordered their dead troops back to life and "refloated" the sunken fleet. Then they instructed the enemy forces to look the other way as their marines performed amphibious landings. Eventually, Van Riper got so fed up with all this cheating that he refused to play any more. Instead, he sat on the sidelines making abrasive remarks until the three-week war game - grandiosely entitled Millennium Challenge - staggered to a star-spangled conclusion on August 15, with a US "victory".

If the Pentagon thought it could keep its mishap quiet, it underestimated Van Riper. A classic marine - straight-talking and fearless, with a purple heart from Vietnam to prove it - his retirement means he no longer has to put up with the bureaucratic niceties of the defence department. So he blew the whistle.

His driving concern, he tells the Guardian, is that when the real fighting starts, American troops will be sent into battle with a set of half-baked tactics that have not been put to the test.

"Nothing was learned from this," he says. "A culture not willing to think hard and test itself does not augur well for the future." The exercise, he says, was rigged almost from the outset.

Millennium Challenge was the biggest war game of all time. It had been planned for two years and involved integrated operations by the army, navy, air force and marines. The exercises were part real, with 13,000 troops spread across the United States, supported by actual planes and warships; and part virtual, generated by sophisticated computer models. It was the same technique used in Hollywood blockbusters such as Gladiator. The soldiers in the foreground were real, the legions behind entirely digital.

The game was theoretically set in 2007 and pitted Blue forces (the US) against a country called Red. Red was a militarily powerful Middle Eastern nation on the Persian Gulf that was home to a crazed but cunning megalomaniac (Van Riper). Arguably, when the exercises were first planned back in 2000, Red could have been Iran. But by July this year, when the game kicked off, it is unlikely that anyone involved had any doubts as to which country beginning with "I" Blue was up against.

"The game was described as free play. In other words, there were two sides trying to win," Van Riper says.

Even when playing an evil dictator, the marine veteran clearly takes winning very seriously. He reckoned Blue would try to launch a surprise strike, in line with the administration's new pre-emptive doctrine, "so I decided I would attack first."

Van Riper had at his disposal a computer-generated flotilla of small boats and planes, many of them civilian, which he kept buzzing around the virtual Persian Gulf in circles as the game was about to get under way. As the US fleet entered the Gulf, Van Riper gave a signal - not in a radio transmission that might have been intercepted, but in a coded message broadcast from the minarets of mosques at the call to prayer. The seemingly harmless pleasure craft and propeller planes suddenly turned deadly, ramming into Blue boats and airfields along the Gulf in scores of al-Qaida-style suicide attacks. Meanwhile, Chinese Silkworm-type cruise missiles fired from some of the small boats sank the US fleet's only aircraft carrier and two marine helicopter carriers. The tactics were reminiscent of the al-Qaida attack on the USS Cole in Yemen two years ago, but the Blue fleet did not seem prepared. Sixteen ships were sunk altogether, along with thousands of marines. If it had really happened, it would have been the worst naval disaster since Pearl Harbor.

It was at this point that the generals and admirals monitoring the war game called time out.

"A phrase I heard over and over was: 'That would never have happened,'" Van Riper recalls. "And I said: nobody would have thought that anyone would fly an airliner into the World Trade Centre... but nobody seemed interested."

In the end, it was ruled that the Blue forces had had the $250m equivalent of their fingers crossed and were not really dead, while the ships were similarly raised from watery graves.

Van Riper was pretty fed up by this point, but things were about to get worse. The "control group", the officers refereeing the exercise, informed him that US electronic warfare planes had zapped his expensive microwave communications systems.

"You're going to have to use cellphones and satellite phones now, they told me. I said no, no, no - we're going to use motorcycle messengers and make announcements from the mosques," he says. "But they refused to accept that we'd do anything they wouldn't do in the west."

Then Van Riper was told to turn his air defences off at certain times and places where Blue forces were about to stage an attack, and to move his forces away from beaches where the marines were scheduled to land. "The whole thing was being scripted," he says.

Within his ever narrowing constraints, Van Riper continued to make a nuisance of himself, harrying Blue forces with an arsenal of unorthodox tactics, until one day, on July 29, he thinks, he found his orders to his subordinate officers were not being listened to any more. They were being countermanded by the control group. So Van Riper quit. "I stayed on to give advice, but I stopped giving orders. There was no real point any more," he says.

Van Riper's account of Millennium Challenge is not disputed by the Pentagon. It does not deny "refloating" the Blue navy, for example. But that, it argues, is the whole point of a war game.

Vice-Admiral Cutler Dawson, the commander of the ill-fated fleet, and commander, in real life, of the US 2nd Fleet, says: "When you push the envelope, some things work, some things don't. That's how you learn from the experiment."

The whole issue rapidly became a cause celebre at the Pentagon press briefing, where the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, got the vice-chairman of the joint chiefs-of-staff, General Peter Pace, to explain why the mighty US forces had needed two lives in order to win.

"You kill me in the first day and I sit there for the next 13 days doing nothing, or you put me back to life and you get 13 more days' worth of experiment out of me. Which is a better way to do it?" General Pace asked.

Van Riper agrees with Pace in principle, but says the argument is beside the point.

"Scripting is not a problem because you're trying to learn something," he says. "The difference with this one was that it was advertised up front as free play in order to validate the concepts they were trying to test, to see if they were robust enough to put into doctrine."

It is these "concepts" that are at the core of a serious debate that underlies what would otherwise be a silly row about who was playing fair and who wasn't. The US armed forces are in the throes of what used to be called a "Revolution in Military Affairs", and is now usually referred to simply as "transformation". The general idea is to make the US military more flexible, more mobile and more imaginative. It was this transformation that Rumsfeld was obsessed with during his first nine months in office, until September 11 created other priorities.

The advocates of transformation argue that it requires a whole new mindset, from the generals down to the ordinary infantryman. So military planners, instead of drawing up new tactics, formulate more amorphous "concepts" intended to change fundamentally the American soldier's view of the battlefield.

The principal concept on trial in Millennium Challenge was called "rapid, decisive operation" (RDO), and as far as Van Riper and many veteran officers are concerned, it is gobbledegook. "As if anyone would want slow, indecisive operations! These are just slogans," he snorts.

The question of transformation and the usefulness of concepts such as RDO are the subject of an intense battle within the Pentagon, in which the uniformed old guard are frequently at odds with radical civilian strategists of the kind Rumsfeld brought into the Pentagon.

John Pike, the head of GlobalSecurity.org, a military thinktank in Washington, believes the splits over transformation and the whole Van Riper affair reflect fundamental differences of opinion on how to pursue the war on Iraq.

"One way is to march straight to Baghdad, blowing up everything in your way and then by shock and awe you cause the regime to collapse," Pike says. "That is what Rumsfeld is complaining about when he talks about unimaginative plodding. The alternative is to bypass the Iraqi forces and deliver a decisive blow."

Van Riper denies being opposed to new military thinking. He just thinks it should be written in plain English and put to the test. "My main concern was that we'd see future forces trying to use these things when they've never been properly grounded in an experiment," he says.

The name Van Riper draws either scowls or rolling eyes at the Pentagon these days, but there are anecdotal signs that he has the quiet support of the uniformed military, who, after all, will be the first to discover whether the Iraq invasion plans work in real life.

"He can be a real pain in the ass, but that's good," a fellow retired officer told the Army Times. "He's a great guy, and he's a great patriot, and he's doing all those things for the right reasons."

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 05:58 AM

Heartening to know, as this thread shows, that Bush does not speak for a majority in the states, any more than he was elected by one.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 06:06 AM

LOL, Bagpuss! But Doug, why is the Pentagon meekly accepting Van Riper's account? If it's in the Guardian, it can't be true.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: SINSULL
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 06:37 AM

Multiple Guess Questions???? It appears that Bobert has gone right to the heart of the matter. When I was in school, it was Multiple Choice. The idea was to ponder the merits of each option and choose the correct answer. Our country is being run by a bunch of wahoos who think the "hit and miss" method is the way to go. "Whadaya think, Georgie? Bomb Iraq? Annihilate the Afghans? What?" "Damn, I don't know. Just choose 'C' and we'll be right half the time...probably."

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 07:05 AM

"the first U.S.-initiated war since Teddy Roosevelt" (Amos)

How about Vietnam, Grenada, Panama? Or are you speculating that they might actually make it an official war by declaring it this time?

I still don't get how it is that the fact that there is oil under Iraq proves that they have weapons of mass destruction that seriously threaten the rest of the world.

Incidentally, it's probably easier reading that piece about the Gulf manoeuvres where the US actually lost and they had to fake the results on the Guardian website. (The Guardian keeps its archives up on the net permanently and don't charge for access, unlike some media sources, so I suggest a quote and a link is probably better than posting the whole of a lengthy article.)

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: kendall
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 07:32 AM

Let's not forget when that bunch of mal contents started a war with Great Brittain in 1776. Has anyone read THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE? They were in the catbird seat for many years, but, their own greed and self endulgence brought them down. History is prolog.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Troll
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 11:05 AM

As far as the question of whether or not Sadam has Weapons of Mass Destruction or not, I think it's pretty safe to assume that he does, considering that he used poison gas against the Kurds and against some of his own people back around the time of the Gulf War. Of course, there are those who do not consider biological and chemical agents as WMD's and insist that only nukes will fit the bill.
Some prefer a narrower definition than others but for those who accept nuclear/chemical/biological agents as all being in the class WMD, I don't feel the slightest doubt that the evidence is there in Iraq without the US having to plant it as was so snidely suggested earlier on.
BTW, I don't think North Korea has ICBM capability. I know they could hit our Pacific bases in Japan but not the US mainland. Someone correct me if I'm wrong here.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: NicoleC
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 12:19 PM

Last I heard (about 1999), North Korea had temporarily agreed not to test the Taepo Dong-2 ICBM, but they do have it. Their mid-range Taepo Dong-1 medium range missile couldn't reach the US, but they successfully created and tested a 3-part missile (typical ICBM) instead of a 2-part missile (typical mid-range). The Taepo Dong-1 was mostly a success -- it failed to launch the satellite, but otherwise everything went well.

The -2, although untested, doesn't have much in it that is different from the -1. It's basically a conversion of the -1 rocket. But in rocket science, you never know until you test it.

The CIA thinks that the -2 would have limited accuracy hitting the continental US with a heavy payload (like a nuclear one), but Alaska and Hawaii are fair game. Of course, hitting San Bernadino instead of LA with a nuke has the same net effect!

Unfortunately, the Bush administration also ceased talks with North Korea -- the kind that generated the agreement not to test their ICBM.

Found this link detailing countries who have WMD. I don't know when the last time it was updated, but it looks decent research. Countries with WMD

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: DougR
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 01:03 PM

Nicole: I do believe there is concern about the continued availability of an oil supply if Saddam gets nuke capability. What would there be to prevent him from marching into Saudi Arabia and taking over the oil fields there? He tried it in Kuwait, and there evidently is no love lost between the Royal family in SA and Saddam.

Those risks to do not exist with the other countries you mentioned.

Think about what would happen if our supply of oil dried up? Were Saddam to successfully invade SA, and Russia were to decide to team up with them, they would collectively have the U. S. by the ying yang so far as oil availability is concerned. We get some oil from Mexico, but not enough to take care of our needs. Some of you will say, then we will get what we deserve because we should have dumped oil years ago, and gone to some kind of alternative fuel. Maybe so, but we didn't.

I realize by opening this subject I am inviting the cynics to charge that the only reason for invading Iraq is to protect our oil supply, and, in turn, line the pockets of Bush's friends. That's a ridiculous argument which has already been suggested in this thread. Protecting our oil supply is NOT the primary reason, but it is part of the equation I believe.

I heard a proposal floated yesterday that seems to be the best plan suggested to date. Bush should go to the U. N. and ask for revision in the requirement for weapons inspections Saddam agreed to at the end of Desert Storm. This time however, there should be no restrictions on the inspectors and they should be able to go where they want to go at any time they choose. A military force composed of U. N. troops would be in Iraq to enforce the resolution. If Saddam did not agree to such an arrangement, the world, perhaps, would see the kind of man we are dealing with, and be more receptive to changing the regime in Iraq.

And McGrath, who said the fact that there is oil in Iraq "proves that they have weapons of mass destruction?" I don't recall reading that.

As far as quoting the "Guardian" is concerned, I repeat that were I to offer quotes from the Washington Times or another right-leaning newspaper as "proof" for what I post, I would be laughed out of the forum.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Amos
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 01:30 PM

Von Riper has shown the U.S. Joint Chiefs the same lesson that was taught to King George's general staff by Washington's rabble -- when you over-invest in procedures, and stop thinking, you lose. The British used antiquated formalized marching formations while the Colonists used flexible, Fabian tactics (Francis Marion, known as the Swamp Fox, is a good example).

Here, a veteran Marine demonstrated what really thinking about what was going on, instead of unrolling protocols and drills, could do.

The parallels ar einteresting, and we can only hope that the military big-wigs pay attentionn to their own lessons before someone else teaches them -- as did the Viet Cong and the terrorists who took out the USS Cole. This feller used brilliant tactical innovations which are exactly the kind that underdogs come up with under necessity. It is much harder to envision this kind of tactic from the comfort of an Admiral's stateroom aboard an aircraft carrier, I imagine.

Kevin, you are right about the operations in Panama and Grenada, which I overlooked because they were hardly wars, and came under the Monroe Doctrine. Vietnam was a conflict which evolved much more gradually, first by the French and then by the U.S. -- we did not premeditate a war and then go ahead and start one.

So there are some differences, indeed. But I appreciate the reality check!

Bush's entire argument to date is that we cannot sit idly by in the presence of a lethal threat, waiitng for first strike as a triggering event. This is a reasonable argument IF the premise that we are in fact watching a lethal threat across the table is valid. However, Bush's repeated assertions that it is so do not necessarily make it so, and given his demonstrated disrespect for truth, as distinguished from PR bushwah, I am unpersuaded.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: DougR
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 03:09 PM

Amos: What would it take to persuade you?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: NicoleC
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 03:38 PM

Doug,

The US does not get ANY oil from Iraq, although Iraq has plenty of it. Surprisingly, Iraq's oil embargo of the US didn't have much of an impact except to get the noses out of joint of certain oil executives.

The world's top 5 oil producing nations are: Saudi Arabia, Russia, US, Iran and China. The US's top crude supplier is Saudi Arabia, our top petroleum supplier is Canada. (Yep, Canada.)

What would stop Saddam from taking over Saudia Arabia? More than stopped him in Kuwait, and he was stopped pretty effectively. But how about a few hundred thousand US soldiers stationed on the border with considerable firepower and air supremacy, plus Saudi Arabia's own military forces, which are pretty well capable of defending themselves against someone like Iraq.

But you scenario for attacking Iraq is that Iraq and Russia are going to team up against the US? And that's why Iraq is a threat? Say what you will about Saddam (although I think he's learned a thing or two, rhetoric aside), but Putin is no stark raving idiot. Russia couldn't take on the US alone, let alone all of NATO.

Subject: Proof of NUKES released to Congress
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 03:58 PM

Undeniable proof of nuclear warhead stockpiles and actual nuclear tests that have harmed the enviorment and taken lives was available to Congress today. Of course this information was regarding France.

The Bush intelligence team is still keeping the proof regarding Saddam under wraps since the major thrust of our suspicions is based on CIA interpretations of
Nostrodamus.

But seriously some Congressmen were briefed today about Saddam's weapon capabilitues but public information is still not available.

Congress is likely to vote for another Gulf War. Over 150 Democratic congressmen voted against the 1st Gulf War.

You remember the war over phoney incubator theft?

You remember the war where US troops exploded the stockpile of Iraqi chemical and bio weapons thus exposing many US troops to contamination but was brushed under the rug as a psychogical Gulf War "syndrome".

You remember it was that war that bin Laden claimed that the infidel US servicemen defiled the holy land of Mecca and in turn conducts a war against the US today.

Remember how Iraq attacked Saudi Arabia with exactly 2 scud missles that landed in a US military base?

No I do not think most Congressmen remember very much. Except that we won the war.

What did we win? Good will? Some exploded oil wells? Exactly how appreciative is Kuait today?

What does it matter, we won didn't we?
We tracked'em down, smoked'em out and brought'em ta justus. Didn't we

Subject: When ISM's collide
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 04:07 PM

Islam according to terrorism theology

Ladenism- a religion of faith and lies

Ladenism, is founded on fibs and oft repeated phrases.
The 10 mantras:

1) "God is Great."

2) " Allah will help us destroy the infidels."

3) "We have to defend ourselves, donations and Jihad is the only way."

4) "Since September 11, We have shown the world we can win."

5) "We will fight until every Jew and Jew lover is removed from our historic land."

6) "Hero's die for Allah."

7) "We do not need anything from the West."

"Jews and the Bush administration 'let 9/11 happen."

9) " Islam is the one true faith."

10) "Weapons of mass destruction will save us!"

Every good lie has a speck of truth in it.

The dangers of Isladenism-ism:

The plodding US action is like an angry powerful fat guy going up against Islamic judo experts. The fat guy's own weight and momentum will be used against him with such economy of movement that the judo expert will win.

Proportionality limited the 5 planes destined to destroy American landmarks and kill only a "few infidels". Once an all out US attack on the middle east begins, porportionality will be discarded.

5 planes could then be used with the grace of God to crash into 5 Nuclear power plants - rendering 90% of the inhabited US east coast unihabitable. The fleeing exposed population could then be subjected to bio agents to continue God's work.

The winds of Allah will blow the USA from the face of the Earth in 10 years time.

.............................................................................

Bushism - a religion of faith and lies

Bushism, is founded on fibs and oft repeated phrases.

The 10 commandments/mantras:

1) "George Bush is an intelligent and decent man."

2) "I have faith in our system of checks and balances."

3) "We have to defend ourselves, and WAR is the only way to do that."

4) "Since September 11, George Bush has shown strong leaderships skills."

5) "Europeans don't agree with us because they're effete appeasers."

6) "George Bush's administration is filled with solid, foreign policy pros."

7) "George Bush is doing an excellent job in the war on terror."

8) "People who say the Bush administration 'let 9/11 happen' are conspiracy nuts."

9) "The media is liberal."

10) "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction!"

Every good lie has a speck of truth in it so some of the above lies may appeal to you on the surface.

The dangers of Bushism:

The danger is that our current course of plodding action is like an angry powerful fat guy going up against a judo expert. The fat guy's own weight and momentum will be used against him with such economy of movement that the judo expert will win.

Borrowing from the Muslim double edged sword, nuclear weapons will spell defeat for both racist religions that strive to oppress freedom as they choose.

ISM's are never so alike as when they're at war.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: euclid
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 04:22 PM

IT BECOMES APPARENT THAT MUDCATTERS ARE FLAMING LIBERALS

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: DougR
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 04:28 PM

Euclid: Where have you been? Of course the majority of them are! Did you post that in jest?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Amos
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 04:33 PM

Jeeze, Euclid, that's not much of an addition to the conversation? Or is that too liberal of me?

LOL!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 04:35 PM

I'm not aware that at any stage Iraq has demonstrated any reluctance to sell America or anyone else oil (apart I imagine from when there was actually a war between the countries involved). The problems with getting oil out of Iraq have arisen because of sanctions and quotas.

I'm still puzzled, Doug - the point is, the only legal or moral justification that could exist for an attack on Iraq would be that there was reason to think that this was the only way to preventing an attack being carried out by Iraq. And yet the oil keeps getting mentioned, as if somehow the fact that someone possesses something that you want is a justification for going in and taking it.

I know that is the way the world often works, and it is the way the British Empire and the American continental empire were built up in the 19th century, for example, in a way that was quoted by Hitler and Mussolini as justification for their expansionism.

But if you believe the promises and the statements of principle made by all our leaders over the last few years, that way of thinking is no longer accepted by civilised regimes. It's the way of the gangster. And if you don't believe those promises and statements, there is still a duty on citizens to do what they can to hold them to their words. (And set agains that, differences between so-called "liberals" and "conservatives" pale into insignificance.)

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 04:36 PM

http://forums.maestronet.com/forums/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB5&Number=155816&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1&vc=1&PHPSESSID=

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Amos
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 05:00 PM

Donuel:

I think you should try tucking that link into a blicky.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: NicoleC
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 06:27 PM

McGrath,

Iraq has twice declared it would not sell oil to the US. The first time (April 2000-ish), they stopped selling. Economists declared a crisis. No crisis emerged. Iraq sold their oil to other consumers, and other producers sold us their oil.

The second time (November 2001-ish) was, apparently, a publicity stunt. Iraq declared (again) it would not sell the US oil (when it already wasn't) as a response to the attack on Afghanistan, stating that the attack on the country instead of just attacking the terrorists violated international law. (Which it did.)

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 06:32 PM

My theory is that Saddam is unlikely to attempt to conquer the US because the US can stomp Iraq flat any time. It will of course cost a a lot of deaths.

However, If people like Bush or John Ashcroft or Doug R are actually going to be risking their lives on the front lines, and still favor war, they have my respect.

If they're going to stay at home and say, "Let's you and him fight; I'm real sorry, but I can't go myself." they do not.

Clint

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 06:41 PM

"Iraq sold their oil to other consumers, and other producers sold us their oil."

So technically they weren't selling to the US - but it amounts to the same thing. In any case, even if the effect were that the USA wasn't getting some oil it might want, that would do nothing whatsoever to strengthen the case for armed intervention to get hold of it.

I mean, even if the basis of international law on such matters were to become "from each according to their abilities, and to each according to their needs" - which I somehow think is not what "the free market system" is supposed to be about - the USA would not exactly be in the front line of needy countries.

If there is a valid case for war against Iraq, it can't be to make money for people in the oil business.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 07:09 PM

Well, danged, ain't this something. Junior has sure Painted himself into the proverbial corner. All this huff and puff was 'sposed to get Saddam to just roll over. Saddam has to be loving all this. Who's controling whom?

Junior is going to go the United Nations wutgh his huff and puff act and pictures and blah, blah, blah and after the speech all the major media is gonna say what a onderfyl job he did and Doug will be telling us, "I told you so." Anf for a week or so we're gonna get a steady diet of Dumb Rumdfield doing his best huff and puff.

But as the smoke clears its going to be apparent, that inspite of all the comotion, that no actaul evidence was produced and Bush again will be painted into a corner. Problem is, Junior will have hust bombed Bagdad and...

Well, Junior does have one chance to salvage a place in history that isn't going to find his name on a list including Benedict Arnold, Herbert Hoover, Richard Nixon and others. He can go before the United Nations and call for an Emergency Middle East Summit to deal with all the problems facing the Middle East. And yes, Saddam, Sharon and Arafat invitees. Yeah, he could signal that the US is now up to the task of providing the leadership role that the world expects of it. Sure, he'll ruffle a few feathers of some of the aging hawks who want to just kink one more butt before they go outm but heck with them. Sure, it's gonna mean that corporate America is going to have to retool thier planys toward human friendly profucts but, hey, that's long overdue...

Yeah, this is his only option to saty off the looser's list. Even if the US does win a hot wat against Iraq, it will pay many times over for its shallow victory as it will then have to fear terorist reprisals for the rest of all our lives, and our kids lives.

Does Bush have the courage to break the cycle? Who knows. We know he'd never figure it for himself, that's for sure...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 09:06 PM

There was of course a major US-Brit assault on Iraq today, in the northwest corner of the southern no-fly zone. Looks like they might be trying to open up a safe route in via Jordan, though Jordan is still opposed as far as I know, and Turkey remains the most likely launchpad.

Troll, with respect, an "assumption" about WMDs is no basis for launching a frigging war. There's going to have to be some kind of proof. In the meantime why not go after the countries with tried and tested nuclear WMDs - Pakistan, India, China, France, Russia, Ukraine, UK, Israel, North Korea and perhaps a few others.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Troll
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 09:52 PM

Fionn, I never said that the posession or the assumed posession of WMD's was a basis for launching a war. I merely pointer out that that I feel that there is reasonable cause to believe that Iraq has them in one or more forms.
If Sadam would allow UN inspectors to truly inspect, the matter could be laid to rest once and for all. In my view, the fact that he has refused for years to allow inspections in any meaningful sense of the word indicates that he has something that he wants to hide from the world.
Maybe he collects My Little Pony figures and doesn't want anyone to find out because it would clash with his "tough guy" image.
Amos, I hate to disagree with you, but the American Army ubder George Washington used pretty much the same linear tactice as the British, Hollywood notwithstanding. Units like Marions rarely, if ever, met the enemy in open battle. Their clashes were more of the it-and-run variety, which, while debilitating in terms of security and the loss of supplies, were only in small part responsible for the Colonists ultimate victory.
If you look at the world situation at that time, the British Empire was having trouble all over the would and were overextended.
The linear tactics of the day were used right up through the Napoleanic Wars when weapons technology made small mobile units more effective and on into the American Civil War.
In fact, the early tactics in WWI were mostly linear in nature where troop movements were concerned until the true destructive power of the machine gun was finally realized by the Allied Commanders.
The Battle of the Somme comes to mind. Tens of thousands of casualties in the first HOUR alone as the men marched out of the trenches in parade-ground formation.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Amos
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 09:54 PM

As I understand it, the "major assault" was on an offending airbase within the no-fly zone; there have been frequent violations of the no-fly zone which by themselves would be sufficient rationale for the counteraction. It is unusual (compared to the same operations over the last year) in that it involved USN planes.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 10:18 PM

Too much MST (Military Science Training) going on here. Ol' Bobert sniffin' that some folks in war paint. Hey!!!! Come on!!!!

Like John said, "Give peace a chance".... Come on!!! Plenty of time to figure stategies if we fail as humans...

Come on.... Let's just back up two days in *our* thinking and get this thing stopped, how about it....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: NicoleC
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 11:22 PM

I think the whole "no-fly" zone is kinda hysterical in a dark, sick way. The no-fly zone doesn't mean no-fly, it's an arbitary chunk of Iraqi airspace that the US and Britain flies in a shoots down anything bigger than a kite. Violating the so-called no-fly zone is violating a creation of the US and Britain (but not the UN).

Occassionally, somebody from Iraq goes out there in a plane. Foolhardy, but my guess is that young male idiots who join the army for battle glory are the same in any language or culture. Most of the time the "violations" are Iraqi anti-aircraft shooting at US and UK aircraft who are flying over IRAQI territory.

Ironically, both Iran and Turkey violate the no-fly zone to conduct their own target practice in Iraq, but we aren't saying that's provocation for all-out war. It's not a peace zone, it's zone in which the US and UK continue to conduct war, and control an area which is essentially fair game for anyone who wants to take a pot-shot at Iraq. Your tax dollars at work.

So, bombing in Iraq is back in the news. Sorry to say, but we've been bombing something in Iraq at least once a week for the past 10 years. Something like 1100 missiles a year to about 350-400 targets.

Ironically, both Iran and Turkey violate the no-fly zones to conduct their own target practice in Iraq, but we aren't saying that's provocation for all-out war. It's not a peace zone, it's zone in which the US and UK continue to conduct a low-level war, one which has no real objective and no strategy.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: DougR
Date: 07 Sep 02 - 01:09 AM

Bobert, you on Prozak? :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Sep 02 - 10:46 AM

Prozak, Doug! Heck no! My drug of choice is life! And an occasional pull on the peace pipe...

I'm just beginning realize that your guy is so intent on carving out some level of "legitamacy" for an office he wasn't elected to... that between the p.r. folks and Rumsfield, he is winning over more folks than I'd like to see toward supporting his amateurish foriegn policy.

Well, my friend. You all go off and have your little war but leave me out. It's wrong! There are more intellegent ways to achieve a much more peaceful planet than continuing a cycle of failed human behavior...

And the worst thing about it is that no one in any position of authority is talking about alternatives. No, they're just lining up behind one check list or another before we initiate the insanity. That's further proff that democracy, as practiced in the US these days is a failed system because there's no one speaking for the millions of folks who see things pretty much the way I view them...

Danged...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Amos
Date: 07 Sep 02 - 11:12 AM

Danged indeed,. Big Bobert. This surely is the hootenannyfrom hell, and there probably will be blood on the sand before it is over. Arms and legs, too, no longer attached. Some human brain fragments, once supporting something resembling thought. Families without parents, and children in endless grief -- who may well grow up seeking to revenge their clans, BTW. Hot steel fragments opening intestines to the daylight and bones snapping under the weight of collapsing buildings. Inconsolable widows.

Hot blood and ruined human guts. And lots and lots of pure, screaming, unstopping, unconscionable pain.

This is what is being discussed here.

Let's face that part of it squarely, while we sling our cool, abstract polysyllables around on points of policy.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Sep 02 - 11:23 AM

And does anyone anywhere seriously think going to war with Iraq will do anything to reduce the possibility of another September 11 in the future?

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: kendall
Date: 07 Sep 02 - 12:12 PM

There is nothing scarier than ignorance in action. Goethe'

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: DougR
Date: 07 Sep 02 - 12:28 PM

Bobert: "Millions of people?" Come now, I think you are allowing the fact that the majority of the mudcatters probably agree with your POV get in the way of logic. Thousands, maybe. Hundreds? :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Peg
Date: 07 Sep 02 - 12:41 PM

Clearly it is millions of people who do not support this war effort, and they are the same people that have been protesting other senseless invasions, bombings and attacks p[erpetrated by the USA for years now. Been on a college campus lately? If you see an anti-war rally with, say, two hundred students, and figure there must be at least, oh, a thousand other campuses with similar numbers of people engaged in similar activities...well, that gets you at least into the high thousands...

Not counting those who share this opinion who not attend rallies but do things like write letters or discuss things online (as we are doing) and yes, I would say "milions" is a safe bet.

There are millions of war-mongers, too. And no doubt, before all this is over, there will be millions of corpses.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Amos
Date: 07 Sep 02 - 01:00 PM

Troll:

I disagree with your assessment of Washington's tactical intiatives. The Delaware==>Trenton fight is a classic case in point, a guerrilla battle which completely reversed expectations and dependned on high flexibility and unpredictable mobility.

One discussion supporting this perspective can be found here, FWIW.

Of course, military people are renowned for their stupidity and history is full of the same lesson being taught over and over. It seems, at least, that Lt Gen Von Ripen learned it, anyhow!

A

Regards,

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Amos
Date: 07 Sep 02 - 01:09 PM

As a footnote on the ways of people at war, the following letter from General Washington to General Sir Howe, the British Commander, is interesting and informative. It appears a dog belonging to the British General chased off into the woods after a rabbit or deer, and ended up on the Colonial side of the lines, and was duly captured by an American soldier and delivered to Washington's camp.

Octr 6. 1777

General Washington's compliments to General Howe. He does himself the pleasure to return him a dog, which accidentally fell into his hands, and by the inscription on the Collar appears to belong to General Howe.

Ole Bushwah would never have thunk the thought! ' Course them desert dogs don't swim well, anyway.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Sep 02 - 01:23 PM

In the United Kingdom al the opinion polls show people overwhelmingly against an attack on Iraq in these circumstances. The fact that Blair is fervently supportive of Bush is in indication of the way that democracy is in a pretty shaky condition here.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Sep 02 - 01:33 PM

Thanks for the assist, Peg. You know, sometimes I think Doug really does think that there are only a couple of hundred of us. He really needs to get out more.

And, yes, Doug. It is millions and that's just in this country. For straters you can go back to the 2000 Pesidential Selection and figure 100% of those who voted for the Green Party. Then, You can take another 10% to 20% who voted for Bore because they were scared to death of anoth Busgh with his finger on the trigger, and right there you have millions.

Now, I don't remember seeing your face at the Moritorium in 1970 against the Viet Nam War, but there were one hack of a lof of folks that came out of the woodwork for that demonstartion. But, in addition to the usual cast, there were people like my mother with her white gloves on and my Republican father with his suit and tie. Yeah, that sight scared the heck out of your guys.

And mark my words, if Junior goes and gets things all messed up, it won't take as long this time to get the moms and pops on the front line. You see, we;ve seen this movie before and it was lousy the last time, too.

And thank you Amos for writing some very difficult words. People think of what Junior has in mind is some kind of video game, but it ain't. Like you say it is folks getting blown up, it is widows and fatherless kids, and it very much is "unconscionable pain".

And for what? So one man can try to carve out a legacy. So one man acn keep that sleeping dog (the 2000 Seledction) under porch. So that the oldsters from the WWII can get one more case of the jollies?

Like I said, count me out. I'll be in the streets like the last time and time.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: kendall
Date: 07 Sep 02 - 02:30 PM

If SAaddam gets caught red handed about to launch a WMD on any of our allies, I would say, "ice the bastard" Personally, the evidence just doesn't add up. I know Bush just squeeked through college, but, is he really that gullible? THERE IS NO EVIDENCE! Every other country in the world says so! It looks to me like "Resident Bush" is having a "Wargasm"

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 07 Sep 02 - 02:39 PM

Well, I hate to nag, but I really want to know: Is DougR going to go over to Iraq in case of a war and risk death or mutilation, or is he one of those chicken hawks? Does anyone know him?

Like Bobert said, this ain't a video game.

Clint

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Sep 02 - 02:44 PM

Just for argument's sake, suppose that it was Mexico - or Canada, heaven forfend- that was a belligerent nation with a deplorable human rights record and suspected of having grandiose global plans. Suppose further that across the seas somewhere is a powerful nation that is going to stop Mexico/Canada before its plans can reach completion. Would the US protest?

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 07 Sep 02 - 02:57 PM

Sorry about that last troll-like post. I got to brooding about people who want to solve problems with blood & death, and I lost it a bit. I'd be better off if I had Bobert's good nature.

Clint

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: NicoleC
Date: 07 Sep 02 - 03:26 PM

You've got a good point though, Clint. I think the question is relevant. If you aren't willing to die for a cause yourself, how can you say it's right or moralor ethical to send others to die for it.

While a Malthusian discussion on how older men always reduce the population of young men by war, the Chickenhawk Database is not. It's just a little list of warmongers who declined the honor of fighting for their country when it was their turn.

Chickenhawk Database

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 07 Sep 02 - 04:04 PM

Troll, does it ever cross your mind how you'd feel about an UNSCOM-type mission comprised of, say, Russians and Chinese, having carte blanche to do an inventory of WMDs in the US?

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: kendall
Date: 07 Sep 02 - 07:45 PM

I have an 18 year old grand son. I don't want him to die in Iraq to fatten the coffers of big oil. Make no mistake, it is about oil.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: DougR
Date: 07 Sep 02 - 09:40 PM

Naw, Clint, they don't want old guys like me.

Kendall: I don't want my grandsons to have to fight either, but there may be no choice. As to evidence, well, let's wait and see what Bush has to say to the nation next week, and to the U. N. I have a feeling though if Saddam toted a suitcase nuke up the Hudson himself there wouldn't be many on this forum that would approve of our taking him out. You would, I know, but you are an exception.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Sep 02 - 11:27 PM

Doug: Now listen very carefully when your guy speaks before the United Nations on Sept. 11th. Hmmmmm? Is there any reason what so ever that he has chosen that date? Yeah, he had had a tean of P.R. men and women workin' 'round the clock toward this presentation.

Listen for evidence. Not the same stuff we allready know. In case you've forgfoptten what we allready know you can scroll up for a gentle reminder. Yeah, Junior will most likely have his little slide show that will show, if you think about sacrificing one of your grandkids, really ain't... ahhh... nithin' new at all for that matter.

Sure, he's gonna sounfd convincing. Heck, he ought to. He's spent more tax payers money on this little speech than all the Mudcatters combined will pay in taxes over their lifetime just getting Junior ready to go out and sell us this war...

But sell he will do, and for the media, ahhh, they'll say that he did a great job. But they are owned by the folks who stand to profir from Junior's war so waht the hack they 'sposed to say?

But, 'ol bobert knows the deal.... And it's fixed toward a conclusion that is gonna get alot of folks hurt real bad... but don't worry... they will die.

This is the stupidist, immoral, anti-human act to occir in the lives of over half the American population yer we are powerless to stop this man? And given the lack of real information when the Gulf of Tonkin was voted will represent the worst decision in over 50 years, I am ashamed tonight to be an American. I am embarreassed. What, to save one liar of a Presifent to face the reality that he stole democracy from my country?

Screw him. He is the traitor...

Bobert

P.s. So much for Bobert's patience... Time to mobilize against this madman...

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Sep 02 - 11:58 PM

Spoken like a good Republican, DougR.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Peg
Date: 08 Sep 02 - 12:02 AM

Bobert for President!

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 08 Sep 02 - 12:16 AM

Well, Doug, I'm past military age myself, and it's good to know that your grandsons and their generation are available to die for us. That'll keep the Iraqis from overrunning my home here in North Idaho.

After all, we're too old to die.

Clint

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: GUEST,Richard H
Date: 08 Sep 02 - 01:32 AM

Quote from National Geographic, July 2002: "In 1993 a United States military force, originally despatched to Somalia as part of a UN humanitarian peacekeeping mission in the midst of a horrific famine, concluded that the Habr Gedir leader, Mohamed Aideed, was the principal source of local disorder and launched an intensive manhunt to arrest or kill him.

"Uniting in the face of this assault on their leader, the Habr Gedir fought back, culminating in the Oct 3, 1993, battle in South Mogadishu - the subject of the recent film 'Black Hawk Down' - in which 18 Americans and as many as 1000 Somalis were killed.

"The shock of American casualties quelled any appetite among the Western powers for further intervention."

It seems US leaders have a great liking for war but not for the unpopularity associated with bringing home young Americans in body bags.

The answer is to (1) bomb them suckers from way up in the sky; (2) get locals to fight for you on the ground. The Afghan Northern Alliance weren't too impressed with this in the early stages.

In Iraq there doesn't seem to be much military local opposition to Saddam. So we're talking bombs.

Unfortunately Saddam's sojers aren't likely to parade across the desert. Women and children and world public opinion are their only protection against bombing.

So which will Bush opt for - heavy civilian casualties or the risk of body bags?

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Amos
Date: 08 Sep 02 - 01:46 AM

Oh, be the first one on your block
T'have your body brought home in a box!

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme mierde vieux, n'est-ce pas?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 08 Sep 02 - 02:25 AM

What's George got that I haven't got? Why is his adgenda for the warring world so much more ...

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: kendall
Date: 08 Sep 02 - 06:56 AM

Doug, there is ALWAYS a choice. Even testosterone poisoning can be overcome.In my opinion, that beady eyed phoney is gearing up to protect the republicans in the upcoming congressional elections. PERIOD! How many countries that are unfriendly toward us have weapons of mass destruction? Why do we have the knife out for Iraq? Where is the proof that they have anything that can threaten us? Who gathered it, the CIA? They couldn't find their own ass with both hands! They couldn't whip Iran, how the hell are they going to survive a war with us? It's madness. In war, the first casualty is truth. I have not believed anything my government has said since the Gulf of Tonkin non incident.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Troll
Date: 08 Sep 02 - 09:32 AM

Fionn, Saddam agreed to the inspections to stop the war. He signed an agreement on behalf of his country.
Of course he doesn't like it and of course he wants to avoid it. I am sure that if the conditions you outlined were applied in the US for the same reasons as are the conditions in Iraq, that, no, I wouldn't like it.
No one ever said that Saddam had to like the inspections. He simply has to comply with them. He has shown that he cares very little for anything save his own power and that he is willing to sacrifice his own people to maintain and increase that power.
Quite frankly, I don't care what Saddam thinks. He has proved to be a danger to the region and our allies there in the past and there is absolutely no proof that he has changed his ways.
I am, however, quite willing to wait and see what proofs (if any) the President offers on 9/11 before either endorsing or condemning the decision to "take Saddam out."
That's more than most on this forum seem willing to do.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Sep 02 - 12:49 PM

Thanks, Peg. And I'm sure if get the job, I won't have to look too far for cabinet members, yourself included. And I know in my heart that the folks here a Mudcat would do a hundred times better than the idiots and thieves that are in there now. Double-damned-guarenteed!

Bobert

P.S. We'll evn keep DougR around as an adviser. What ever he thinks on an issue we'll just do the opposite. Just funnin', Dougie...

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Sep 02 - 12:51 PM

Now if Bush were a statesman he'd announce on September 11 that the USA was in favour of universal arms inspections to verify the facts about what weapons of mass destruction are in existence, and who has them, and what can be done to make sure they are never used.

He'd say it was crazy for the idea of such inspections to be seen just as some kind of punishment only to be imposed on countries with a bad record. They should be part of a regular system of arms control. After all, we've got a system of roadworthiness tests for all vehicles in the UK and I imagine there's something similar in other countries. They aren't just imposed on drivers who have had crashes.

Bush would then announce that the USA would start the ball rolling immediately by opening itself to independent inspection; and of course Tony Blair's representative would immediately follow suit. If Iraq didn't open up in face of that, then would be the time when tough talking would be appropriate.

Bush won't do it of course. But then I said "if".

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Peg
Date: 08 Sep 02 - 01:00 PM

I wanna be Secretary of State. Has a nice ring. And I am cuter than Madeleine (but Colin I have to say gives me a run for my money; Now if they would just let the poor man DO HIS JOB).

Amos: Vice President Kendall: Chief of Staff McGrath: Deputy Chief of Staff Nicole: Press Secretary katlaughing: EPA Director Fionn: National Security Adviser DougR: Speaker for the House

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Sep 02 - 01:04 PM

With Joe Offer for President I take it?

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Amos
Date: 08 Sep 02 - 01:20 PM

No, it was Bobert who got named as Prez. First thing we'll do is expand the parking lot in theback of the White House for all them 1975-1989 Chevettes and Pintos, I reckon. And LUV trucks!!   Peg, I am pure-dee honored. If nominated, I will run, and if elected I will serve.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: GUEST,Richard H
Date: 08 Sep 02 - 02:18 PM

Begging leave to petition the new Bobert/DougR US Administration:

Sirs,

On October 6, 1976, two anti-Castro terrorists got off a Cubana DC8 aircraft in Barbados, leaving on board an activated magnetic bomb.

The bomb exploded shortly after take-off. All 15 crew and 58 passengers were killed despite brave efforts to get back to land.

The Florida-based group "El Condor" said the attack was to teach Caribbean countries not to be too friendly with Castro.

The perpetrators were arrested in Venezuela but "escaped" back to America. It is believed that these terrorists were "trained, directed, financed and protected" by the CIA. Dr. Orlando Bosch certainly has a long association with the CIA and apparently "lives in Miami with total impunity and is still active in terrorism."

Addressing the UN on Nov 15 last year after 9/11, the Barbados Foreign Minister expressed our deep-felt sympathy and understanding for the American people, and referred to the Cubana incident: "Although the masterminds of that attack were identified and apprehended, they were never punished for their crime, but instead encouraged to remain actively engaged in their campaign of terror."

The governments of Cuba, Barbados and Guyana (there were 11 Guyanese students on board) have repeatedly asked the USA to let these terrorists be put on trial but they remain under US protection.

So, how about it, Prez Bobert and Speaker Doug? Are you willing to show the world you're serious about dealing with terrorists no matter whose side they're on?

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Sep 02 - 04:32 PM

But you'll note the people who planted that bomb nade sure to get off the plane so as not to be killed themselves. That makes it all completely different...

Otherwise of course any war on terrorism would have to start at home, and that wouldn't do.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Amos
Date: 08 Sep 02 - 05:13 PM

Well, I'd suggest the first thing we do, if we is gonna pursue this war thing, is find out who the war is against and then see if we can get some dialogue going. This bomb plantiing and such has just got to stop.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: DougR
Date: 08 Sep 02 - 05:39 PM

Uh, sorry Peg. I'm retired.

Richard H., your last post leads me to believe you have not read all of the posts in this thread. Bobert and DougR on the same ticket? Not likely. :>) Bobert just included me in the group because he needs somebody to pick on. By then, Bush would be history so he wouldn't be around (unless, ((gasp!)) Bobert is talking r-e-v-o-l-u-t-i-o-n!).

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Amos
Date: 08 Sep 02 - 06:00 PM

I can think of a few really good reasons for one.

We could use a healthy cleansing of the complex and highly corrupt collection of implanted, over-grown, intertwined, over complicated laws governing the country, and we for sure could use an overhaul to the process by which they are generated by slicing and swapping pork. That ain't the way policy should be born. One good idea would be to do a healthy skeptical review to detemrine where States' rights had been eroded by the Federal mandates and restore them.

A second would be to institute a Constitutional limit on total taxation and a commitment that taxation per se will never be treated as anything but a civil issue.

If we at the same time dropped all the protective exceptions and variations in the tax code in favor of a low, direct simple assessment, paid by all individuals and all institutions equally, we'd probably skyrockett the Federal revenues, at a guess, and would certainly stimulate the economy. Then we could put all those out-of-work IRS accountants to work finding sources of inefficiency and fat in the Federal budget. Yeehaw.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: DougR
Date: 08 Sep 02 - 06:04 PM

Uh, is this the Amos that has been posting regularly to the Mudcat? If so, we agree on something at least. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Amos
Date: 08 Sep 02 - 06:52 PM

Hot DAMN!!! We done found the MIDDLE GROUND!! Oyez, Oyez!!

Now I have to go find a grinning psychic and slap her face.

Why?

My mother always told me to strike a happy medium...

(Duck and exit stage left)...

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Sep 02 - 08:09 PM

"taxation per se will never be treated as anything but a civil issue".

I know it's drift, but I get curious. Would that mean that not paying your taxes could never be a matter for criminal prosecution? Al Capone would have backed that one all right.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: NicoleC
Date: 08 Sep 02 - 08:19 PM

Uh, folks, the Prez doesn't get to pick the Speaker of the House. That'd mean Doug was the senior member of the majority party of the House. Green Prez, Republican Congress... nothing would ever get done. Sounds about right for the government :)

If we're gonna start a what-would-you-do, just the domestic agenda:

1) Flat tax, no deductions of any kind.
2) Single-payer healthcare system, not including cosmetic and fertility services; private health insurance companies welcome to compete. (Yeah, yeah, I know. The country's not ready for it. This is fantasy.)
3) Elimination of all subsidies and special tax breaks for fossil fuel energy providers and makers of equipment that uses it.
4) Redirect tax incentives as grants and funds -- temporarily -- to energy companies and makers of equipment who invest research and development into renewable energy sources. (Like the CA Fuel Cell Partnership.) Big help for early adopters, no help for laggards. Additional funds for national public awareness campaign, similar to the highly successful recycling and forest fire campaigns.
5) Forget the rhetoric and actually work toward a more flexible, smarter military. Billions for failed projects are gone, but enlisted men need to get salaries that can support a family. The fact that many of our enlisted men have to use food stamps and welfare to support a small family is shameful.
6) Moritorium on genetically engineered foods pending thorough safety trials. Medicinal plants grown in clean-room conditions excepted; they've already undergone clinical trials.
7) Work with existing NGO gun clubs and safety organizations to establish a basic gun safety licensing test along the same lines as a driver's license test.
8) Strengthen National School Lunch Program to provide *healthy* meals, not just any meal. A bagel for breakfast and a piece of pizza for lunch does not meet the mandate to provide nutricious food.
9) Roll back direct government influence of non-citizen groups, like corporations and special interest groups. These groups are free to influence voters, but since they do not have the same responsibilities as citizens they should not have the same priviledges.
10) Increase public interest in government by reaching out to teenagers and college students and other groups which are either typical disenfranchised or will be entering the voting pool soon.

Egad, I could go on and on...

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Sep 02 - 08:39 PM

Well. If elected, I'm gonna follow Amos's advice in recodifying the nations laws. And while I'm at it we're gonna have to reorganize the government a tad.

First of all, the electorial college is out. Gone. History. Kaput...

Now for Vice President, I want Little Hawk, not because of any other reason but the simple fact that the rest of you guys the country needs else where.

Dept of Interior: Ebbie, whop will save them trees and owls fir our kids.

Transportation: Fionn (think trains and monorails)

State: Amos, hands down

Defense: Kendall. Ya need amna man who says a lot with so few words because that gonna translate to, ahhh, not a lot of fightin' with folks. Heck, he'll just tell out adversaries stories and bring 'em to theur knees in laughter. Hard to aim them rockets when you're laughin'. Right

Eduction: This is Kats without a second thought. Just don't make me learn to do no bluey things. Them is fir kids. And smart folks...

Department of Laughs: The Spawzman hisself. Hey, don't laugh (no... do) becuase this is gonna be a very not so serious department.

Health: McGrath, because of smartness and we're gonna need that in a nation that charges way too much for so little in return. And doctors are gonna have to be trained in actaully diagnosing, sonething that the medical profession is lacking these days...

Department of Peace: NicoleCastle. Go get 'em. You can do it! Make peace fashionable.... I know you can do it

Press Secretary: This one is easy. Ya' gotta have someone who can mix it up and satnf tall: Peg

Special Advisor to the President: Waht, did you peek? Okay, the cat's out of the bag, so to speak. My friend....DougR. Who else? Hey, I don't have to follow hus advice but I do very much want to know what's on his mind....

Other advisors: Teliesn, Jerry Rassmussen, Bill and Rita, Greg and Kate (sans the chainsaw, than you), troll #1 and troll # 36, Chance (guitars)....

Still taking application for unfilled positions

Yeah, we're gonna need someone for Commerace. Must have socialist tendacies and think that worker owned businesses are the way of the future.

Welfare: Forget it. We won't need it. We're gonna up the minimum wage to a point where everyone will want to work...

Did I leave anyone or anything out?

Heck, last night I didn't have a clue Uz was gonna be in charge so Iz kinda feeling it out as I go.

But one heck of a cabinet!!!!

Thank you for your support.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Amos
Date: 09 Sep 02 - 12:17 AM

Jeez, Bobert, we only got put on the list 24 hours ago and I been demoted from VP to State already!!!! But, what the hey, if that's what you need, I'll play ball. I guess I'm responsible for the State of Things, but not the State of Affairs, right? Cuz, well, you understand, I don't go in for them. :<>)

Anyway you're off to a riproaring start. Good idea keeping DougR up close where you can keep an eye on him...

LOL!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Amos
Date: 09 Sep 02 - 12:32 AM

Not to sound too much like an Enquirer reader, but the wire services are carrying an interesting story on an interview with Saddam's ex-mistress which has plenty of juicy gossip in it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: GUEST,Kiwi Folk Singer
Date: 09 Sep 02 - 05:25 AM

"Weapons of Mass destruction"."Bully States" Has Bush ever looked in a mirror. Perhaps the CIA organized the Sept 11th. attack so that Bush could grab the moral high ground and invade Afganistan for it's oil and gas pipe line. Better beat the Russians and the Chinese. Now he is turning his attention to another oil reserve. It would have been much better for him to have supproted the Earth Environmental Summit than make a world wide energy grab for his own personal vested interests.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Amos
Date: 09 Sep 02 - 09:30 AM

Kiwi,

I'm terribly sorry but it seems to me the notion that George Bush OR the CIA organized the destruction of last September to be abysmally paranoid and unreal. THere have already been published interviews with those who organized it.

I concur with your opinion about the Environmental Summit, generally, but let's not go over the edge just because we're a bunch of tree-hugging pink-and-green commie punks here!! LOL!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Amos
Date: 09 Sep 02 - 10:00 AM

Apparently the real scoop on Iraq's efforts to build nuclear weapons is being provided by defectors from Hussein's nuclear program.

The analysis found here in the NY Times is infomrative.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Amos
Date: 09 Sep 02 - 10:05 AM

This thread being nearly 100 posts in length, a FOURTH segment can be found over here.

A