BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE

Subject: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 10:17 AM

There may be more to be said in continuation of Part Four over here, but it is too long.

So say it here instead!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Bagpuss
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 10:24 AM

Sumthin' up with that link....

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Bagpuss
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 10:27 AM

Part Four over here

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 10:29 AM

Thanks, 'Puss! One of these days I am gonna stop doing that!!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 10:45 AM

Notes on 9-12: The headquarters of the command overseeing U.S. forces in
the Mideast is at least temporarily moving much of its staff from
its current home in Florida to a base in the Persian Gulf state
of Qatar. The NYT and WP both point out that the base in question
has recently been expanded and is now probably ready to serve as
a big war HQ. FYI: One of the reasons the papers may know that is
because some folks have recently published commercial satellite
photos showing construction at the base. [See: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/al-udeid-imagery2.htm]

Ethnic groups in northern Iraq are
"already squabbling" about who should control one oil-rich area
if and when Saddam falls. Various pundit-types have been warning
recently that should Saddam get the boot, the U.S. will have a
tough-time keeping Iraq in one piece.

(From "Today's Papers" digest).

As if the Balkanization of the Balkans wasn't bad enough, and the disintegration of the Afghan tribes into squabbles, now we'll be back to the days of Lawrence of Arabia, with feuding tribal segments making life in Iraq look like a war zone...well, er...

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 11:31 AM

Well, danged, Amos... I'm not liking this anymore today than yesterday but then again Iz keeping my ol' Wes Ginny butt the heck away from the brainwashing television like it was a box illed with high grade uranium...

Ahhhhh, I understand that the Pope has now weighed in and thinks that the US needs to go to the United Nations and not attack without a Security Council resolution, which of course the US most definately won't get.

This does not bode well for Junior since an attack on Iraq would be in violation of International Law, well unless we just don't give a danged about those minor details.

Well, this is one heck of a mess. Junior & Co. might just have to settle for months of arms inspection in Iraq, long enough for that sleeping dog (the 2000 Selection) to awaken and come out from under the porch. Talk about a man sweatin' bullets? Whew. When that dog gets out, man, the Prez. gonna be busier than an Envon paper-shreader...

BTW, just in case I have forgotten to mention. "Iraq Attack. No!"

Peace

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: curmudgeon
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 12:06 PM

Bobert -- I think there might just be two dogs under that porch. The "axis of evil" speech was delivered exactly two months after the collapse of Enron. Based on a very basic look through Google, it seems that the intensity of the sabre rattling goes up with each corporate scandal -- Tom

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 12:24 PM

Remember the old story about the drunk who dropped his keys? They found him looking for them under the street lamp. "But you didn't drop them here" they said "Ah, but there's more light here so I can see better."

That seems to me the same basic logic as there is for this war they're gearing up for. Al Qaida might have organised September 11th, but it's tricky finding them. Iraq on the other hand appears to have had nothing to do with September 11th - but at least they know where Iraq is.

And there's all that lovely oil up for grabs as well...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 12:36 PM

Now lookie here, Bobert...

When God, justice, AND freedom, AND all human decency are on YOUR side...who the hell cares about "international law". If a law ain't made in America, what kind of damn law is it anyway??? I ask you that!

International law did not stop Uncle Sam from mining harbours in Nicaragua, assassinating priests and politicians in South and Central America, and financing death squads in them places either...and it sure as hell ain't gonna stop Uncle Sam from kicking Saddam's ugly butt around the block!

Got that, sucker? Make my day, Islamic fanatics! Eat leaden death! The Yanks are comin'!

The above is a despatch from the American Bureau of World Cultural Improvement and Ameliorization. Our motto: "Resistance is Futile"

See Mel Gibson's next heroic movie for further moral reinforcement of our cause, and bring a hankie or two just in case.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 01:21 PM

Hawk:

As the founder of the ABWCIA I am sure you will take into consideration a suggestion: change your motto to "Renaissance is Feudal"!

Oh, BTW, what color IS your passport?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 03:31 PM

Well, danged, Little Hawk. Don't know what got into my pea sized Wes Ginny thinkerator... Must have been a bad batch of mountain liquir... I hate it when they use them old Chevy radiators... Nothin' like a sip of crystal clear Ford radiator moonshine.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 03:45 PM

Huh? Just what are you implying, Amos?

(I can't remember what colour it is...I will have to go dig it out of wherever it is hiding, and see.)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: DougR
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 04:06 PM

Bobert: Uh, just what international law are your referring to?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 04:06 PM

I was just reflecting that you might actually be a Canadian, LH -- you know, a subject of a monarch?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Venthony
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 04:25 PM

"Renaissance is feudal" -- I like that. Really. It's clever.

Now then, down to it.

Most of you folks remind me of the "peace at any price" socialists who made a lot of noise here in the U.S. back in the 30s.

The facts are that radical fundamentalist Islam IS evil, and that sooner or later the Democratic nations -- OK, the West -- is going to have to kill it. Might as well be sooner.

I don't know about you, but the next song I plan to write will be something along the lines of "God Bless the 82nd Airborne."

We won't be here, but it'll be interesting -- in 100 years -- to see who was right. Given how most liberals thought the Soviet Union would come out, I'd bet $100 that history is on my side.

Tony

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 04:28 PM

Oh. Ha! Ha! Well, the Queen has actually never made any real demands on me that I know of...

Some days I feel like an object, but very seldom do I feel like a subject.

I would prefer to be a planetary citizen, but that system hasn't been set up yet.

I do enjoy creating bogus organizations with impressive names, as you know. The WSSBA, by the way, is a ferment of activity at the moment, what with the new students coming in all hopeful and bright-eyed, each of them dreaming of accomplishing full Shatnerization in the next 3 to 4 years of diligent study.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 04:44 PM

Well, the new motto is a reflection on the current belief system in play at the Hill. As you probably know the REAL Renaissance was anything but feudal!

Venthony: I dunno who I remind you of -- not my problem -- but I do not believe in peace at any price. If you read my many posts trying to understand the situation around 11-30 September 201, you will see that I insist over and over again that what we must do is focus on the intelligent use of the correct tools on correctly identified targets for valid purposes. That does not include going into international war without a well defined goal. It does not include relying on half-assed intell to commit millions of dollars and hundreds of American lives.

If that Hussein-hole is building nukes, we should take them out, and him as wlel if need be.

But I shun the role of eliminating other people's lives and I think every thinking human being should shun it , except in the case of clear and present threat and real danger. If you read what I have written here about Shrub, it is over and over that he should state the factys on which he believes he is operating plainly. I do not believe he is up to it, either in terms of courage or in terms of ethics.

You may be right about history, but I wouldn't bet on it. The future blessing ofhistory has been used to inspire true believers in every mad mass movement since the first crusade, and such invocations are more often wrong than right, and are semantically null.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: NicoleC
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 04:57 PM

"The facts are that radical fundamentalist Islam IS evil, and that sooner or later the Democratic nations -- OK, the West -- is going to have to kill it."

How anthropocentric of you. Islam is not a form of government and democracy is not a religion. Democracy is not limited to the west or Christianity and theocratic and fundamentalist governments are not limited to the middle east. Let's stop perpetuating the stereotypes. Evil comes in all shapes, sizes, religions and governments. Arbitrarily condemning an entire country or region based on the actions of a portion of the people only serves to reinforce the support for the extremists who want to wage religious war.

Is fundamentalist Islam more or less evil than the fundamentalist Christians who attacked me, kicked me in the ribs and stomach, and stabbed at me with the stakes of their picket signs outside a woman's hospital -- presumably because I was young and female, and therefore MUST getting an abortion? (I was getting a pap smear. What if I had been pregnant and was coming in for a sonogram?)

Shall we label the US or the West evil because a segment of Christianity has hateful, violent views in the name of their religion?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 05:14 PM

My God, Nicole!!    What an awful encounter!!! Thanks god it wasn't an appointment for a sonogram!!

What city was this in, if I may ask?

Venthony: part of intelligent analysis is recognizing correct sources and correct targets. For example, your statement that "radical fundamental Islamism is evil" is a partial or disguised truth. And the conclusion, that therefore the West needs to kill something or someone, is erroneous.

It is true that radical fundamentalism, in the sense you use the word, is generally pretty evil stuff. It is no prettier in Virginia than it is in Bhaghdad. In either case the lesson has been taught over and over that making martyrs does not resolve theistic facisms or fanatacism. Education, and finding root causes (such as poverty, political oppression, or intention manipulation) can be effective, though.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Venthony
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 05:24 PM

Dear Nicole,

I am sorry -- heartbroken, if you will believe me -- for your pain.

But Islamic fundamentalism IS a form of government in several of the the world's most repressive and powerful regimes.

You were attacked by hooligans who can -- one hopes -- be charged, prosecuted and jailed. The Kurds, and others, have no such hope.

Their lives are being extinguished, their wives and daughters raped, their leaders totured, their land seized, and their environment poisoned for no other reason than to realize a madman's dream of a theocratic dictatorship.

Every good wish and prayer that God may heal your pain. But Saddam, to put it bluntly, simply has to be killed.

Respectfully, Anthony Brown

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 05:31 PM

Doug: Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.

Tony: What Nicole and Amos said. I have a longer more involved post on the "Vengence" threads that rouches on some of these issues.

Nicole: I am so sorry that these fundementalist Christains dud this to you but you can bet the farm that they know a lot more about Papst Blue Ribbon and carburetors than the New Testament.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: NicoleC
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 06:31 PM

This was years ago in LA and I was not seriously injured although I was only 18, terrified, and black and blue for weeks -- no thanks to the police who just watched it happen. I later learned the hospital was used to dealing with it and their security guards -- the ones that intervened in my case -- were temps they hired when they saw the "demonstrators" show up in the morning.

Tony, the fact that you justify the murder of Saddam Hussein under the guise of the "evils" of fundamental Islam shows how little you know actually about the subject and how much your views have been colored by those who would much rather you accept their interpretations of "evil." Saddam is a dictator, but Iraq is not a theocracy and most Iraqis do not practice fundamentalist forms of Islam, like Wahhabi.

It may be time for a pop quiz on the three major western religions. Lemmee think about that tonight...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: DougR
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 06:52 PM

Bobert: Iraq is the law breaker, not the U.S or any of it's allies. The president laid it on the line at the U.N. today. Either the U. N. will enforce the Resolutions Iraq agreed to, or the U. S.,and by then, many allies with enforce them. No doubt about it in my mind, and no doubt that we will be justified doing it.

'Peers to me, Bobert, that a member of your new administration mayb be bolting the corral. Amos agreed that if Saddam has nukes, he should be taken out. You don't agree with that statement do you?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 06:55 PM

Without getting in to academics, let's draw some insight from ordinary human experience.

When an individual is able to kill, and upset enough to kill, but thinks it through and does not, he is called a normal guy.

WHen an individual steps in and uses physical force to protect someone else from violence, or to subdue a criminal who is threatening the use of violence. and thus save aparticular situation by handling the source of it, he is often called heroic.

When an individual is angry and takes it out on anyone who crosses his path, using emotional and physical force to intimidate others needlessly and arbitrarily, he is usually known as a cheap bully.

When this form of bullying gets violent to the point of physical harm, he is labeled a criminal, a thug, or perhaps a murderer or serial killer.

The difference is in the balance between analysis and dramatization used, which shows up in whether his force is used on the right people for the right reason (see case "hero" above) or on wrong targets and for wrong reasons (see cases "thug", "bully", "criminal" above).

It does not make a whit of difference whether he rationalizes his acts by conscience, theism, his mother's memory, or his boss' orders. It is the act and the degree of sanity behind it that matters. Never mind the content, the explanations or the justifications.

It is clear from this perspective that we have plenty of heros, plenty of bullies, plenty of thugs and criminals in this country. So does Saddam and so does every other nation. These are not categories based on philosophical notions; they are found in any collection of human beings.

'Course, letting them in office is another matter! :>)...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: bob jr
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 07:18 PM

I find it interesting that people discuss the plight of the Kurds in Irag (where some live and are persecuted) when its handy to do so but not when it isnt i.e. the Kurds in Turkey (where MOST of them live) who have been systematically marginalized and yes killed in large numbers. Could it be that those in Iraq serve a purpose (it suits current propaganda needs?) while those in Turkey (an important American ally) serve none? I dont think its even a question you have to consider for more than two seconds. Rheoteric and bluster may get Americans worked up about attacking Iraq but never kid yourselves into believing the reasons you are being given are even remotely close to the truth. If American foreign policy was based on removing dictators Vietnam and Korea would never have happened..Pinnochet would be an imprisoned ex army general and Samosa would have been removed after two minutes as president. Just in case any of you have forgotten, when it was convient for the states, Saddam was an american ally. He was no less a despot back in those days either.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 07:33 PM

Saddam's regime isn't a nice regime, but it isn't a fundamentalist Islamic one either. One in five Iraqis are Catholics, including members of the government, and there's no pressure on women to keep out of sight or not to drive and so forth. All of which is in sharp contrast with such friendly countries as Saudi Arabia (where the hijackers came from, and where their perverted brand of Islam has its main backers.)

But passports - I was rather under the impression that in some circles having a passport is seen as rather opening holders to the suspicion of being a bit un-American.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: NicoleC
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 09:23 PM

You're right Bob Jr. Folks also conveniently forget that the Kurds are rarely criticized for trying to overthrow the governments of the countries in which they live, murder non-Kurds, and basically be just as vicious as the "bad guys."

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 09:28 PM

Doug,

No one breakin' ranks here, buddy. Yeah, sure. If Saddam has nuclear weapons that can't be delivered than we have a problem, 'cept he don't. Bush even knows he don't.

Like I've tried to tell you before, it ain't rocket science to realize you're gonna need some good ones to deliver a nuclear warhead with any level of accuracy.

Now, rockets ain't exactly invisable and when folk go firin' em off other folks know it. Most rockey programs blow yp a lot of rockets before they actually get the first one off the ground.

So there's Saddam, with his nuclear device inside a suitcase that is duct taped to the nose cone of lets say a scud. We'll, during the Persian Gulf thing Saddam found out that he doesn't know the first thing about even flying one of them.

So there's a couple of fuses that need to be lit. One fir the nuclear device in the suitcast taped to the rocket and then one fir the rocket and Saddam has a book of matches in his hand.... Oh no, this is not a good sign.

"Hmmmmm?" Saddam wonders outloud. "Which one do I light first and then what if I light the nuclear device in the suitcase and then can't get the rocket one lit. Hmmmmmm? Waht happen if like the last time I lit one of these rockets it went stright up and came right back at me? Hmmmmm? What if...."

So Saddam figures that maybe today isn't a good day for flying his rocket afterall...

The End

And, Doug. This little story is not far off the mark...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 09:46 PM

LOL!! Bobert, you should have beem a political cartoonist!! :>)

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 10:55 PM

Actually, the thing for Saddam to do...if he had say one or two or three nuclear bombs...would be this: Save them as a last ditch revenge weapon if he is invaded and his regime is about to fall, then use them in revenge. He would maybe be able to lob one to Israel (just maybe...but no guarantee) and save the other 2 to detonate on the ground or at very short range by artillery or scud missile onto the American or Coalition forces coming in on his borders. In this way he would at least have the satisfaction of going out in a blaze of glory and killing a whole lot of his enemies before they killed him.

Only a direct invasion of Iraq would be likely to inspire an act this desperate, since it would be a suicidal and final gesture.

The very possession of nuclear weapons by smaller powers is because they are a deterrent to attack, correct? Pakistan has them as a deterrent to India, knowing that India is militarily stronger.

The only way you can force a smaller country to use its nuclear weapons is to invade them and leave them "no other choice", as they see it.

Knowing this, why would Bush invade Iraq? Does he not care about the consequences? Or does he in fact not believe that Saddam has any nuclear weapons?

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: NicoleC
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 12:41 AM

The thing for Saddam to do, if really wants to attack the US, is to use our vast stockpile of weapons against us. Saddam doesn't HAVE to have a nuke if he can sabotage a nuclear reactor. You don't have to have a huge bomb to take down a major building (as we've learned the hard way), and even less to take out a busy bridge or dam, and you don't have to transport a huge quanity of explosives if you can just start a fire at a large refinery situated near a metropolitan area.

Comparative Western Religions quiz coming up soon...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Amos
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 12:58 AM

If he were to do that, we would pour Marines into Iraq until they ran every stoplight and watering hole in the country. Not a wise course of action.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: NicoleC
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 01:08 AM

I agree, not a wise thing to do at all. But if Saddam is crazy enough to launch a nuke at us (as we're all supposed to believe), he wouldn't need to build one and stick it on a rocket.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: DougR
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 02:29 AM

Amos, will you quit sucking up to your boss (Bobert)! You said if Saddam has nukes, we should get rid of him, or words to that effect. I called this to the attention of your boss, and he babbles on about "if Saddam has nuclear weapons he can't deliver, then we have a problem." That's a problem? The problem, Mr. President, is if he CAN deliver them! Geeze! If you're gonna be president, Bobert ole' Buddy, then you're going to have to shape up a bit. Bush has, so I'm sure if you put your mind to it, you can too!

And as to our backing Saddam many years ago, yes that's right. Why? Because our relations with Iran happened to be piss poor at the time. Why? Because they held lots of fine American folks as hostage and Jimmy Carter couldn't figure out a way to "talk" them into freedom. So yes, we crawled into bed with Saddam. Why? It suited our interest at the time to do so. Rocket science, right?

The ball is in the U.N. and Saddam's court now. The U. S., for the time being, is out of it. Now we will see just how strong the U. N. is, and how dedicated they are to enforcing their own Resolutions.

DougR

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Bagpuss
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 05:51 AM

"And as to our backing Saddam many years ago, yes that's right. Why? Because our relations with Iran happened to be piss poor at the time. Why? Because they held lots of fine American folks as hostage and Jimmy Carter couldn't figure out a way to "talk" them into freedom. So yes, we crawled into bed with Saddam. Why? It suited our interest at the time to do so. Rocket science, right?"

If you can't see why that is a problem, then I'm not sure what to say...

As others have said, the Iraqi government is not an islamic fundamentalist one. Some of the peoples in his country (eg the Kurds and the Shia muslims) are more fundamentalist than them. Since Islamic fundamentalism is evil, is Saddam justified in attacking them and and trying to stamp out this "evil"? Iran is also actively seeking nuclear weapons, and is a fundamentalist regime. Why aren't we attacking him first?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: kendall
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 08:49 AM

The UN be damned. Give the job to Isreal. They did well in 1981, and with no endless debates.They just went in and took it out.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 09:02 AM

The argument is that it is possible that Iraq might have weapons of mass destruction at some time, and might launch a suicidal attack against the rest of the world, and that this justifies a pre-emptive strike by the USA against that country.

That is an argument that would justify a pre-emptive strike against any country on the planet that a US government might at any time choose to target.

One thing for certain, if Bin Laden is alive he must be praying for that attack on Iraq to take place.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Peg
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 10:21 AM

Did anyone catch Letterman on 9-11? I did not watch TV all day but switched it on after midnight. Bill Clinton was his guest. Lots of intelligent conversation (good questions from Dave) on energy policy and also Iraq. Bill's opinion: Saddam is dangerous and a proven murderer and thug and not very bright to boot. But he thinks an all-out, hastily-planned attack is not a good idea. He suggested that going through the UN was the best course, since any violations would result in the widespread removal of chemical and nuclear weapons. (Of course there is one inspector who is now claiming there are no WMDs there; one wonders if he has been bought). Clinton reminded everyone that this is what happened during his presidency; that the weapons inspection, before it went awry, did result in removal of dangerous WMDs. He also stated that if we do not get these weapons soon, Saddam will likely give them to nations happy to use them against us, in addition to using them himself. Now I hear on NPR that the deadlines connected to inspections will be in terms of "days and weeks" and not "months."

Meanwhile the armed forces are already preparing to fight a war there and Congress still has not declared anything...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 10:38 AM

Weird things happen when powerful people want war. The Japanese Navy was bittery opposed to launching a war on the USA in the late 30's and early 40's because their commander, Admiral Yamamoto, believed they could not win such a war. He was called "defeatist" and threatened with assassination by the Army hawks, who wanted a war (which the Navy would have to fight...). He was finally sent to sea, in order to keep him alive, since he still opposed going to war, and a lot of people were out to kill him for it.

The Army, you see, was running the political show in Japan at that time.

Well, the Army finally got its way, and war became absolutely inevitable, despite the fact that Yamamoto was dead right...it was virtually unwinnable for Japan, unless they worked miracles...and the USA made huge blunders at the same time.

Yamamoto got the order to fight...and like any good Japanese immediately set out to obey it as best he could. He planned the Pearl Harbour operation, which he figured was the best shot at evening up some very uneven long range odds.

For this he was hated by Americans, yet he was the strongest voice in Japan against fighting the USA in the first place. Americans did not know that, I suppose, although I'm sure their political and military top leaders knew it.

The Americans later planned a trap for Yamamoto, and shot him down with P-38's in 1943. Sweet revenge, they called it.

Now...I wonder if Bush, like Tojo, will finally get his way and have his war. At least in his case, he knows he can "win" it...conventionally speaking. Sort of like Japan attacking some little place like Thailand in 1941 would have been....but with greater long term risk this time, I'd say. Too much possible fallout in all the wrong directions.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 11:04 AM

Danged, Doug. As we know the Prez, ain't much at typing, especially on the home pudder since with the exception of 3 or4 letters my 17 year old has worn the rest off the keys but my post should have read:

"nuclear waepons that he *can*, not *can't* deliver. I figured the rest of the post made my point perfectly clear.

And I will try to get this keyboeard thing straightened out.

And since when did Junior shape up as Prez.? Following orders and shaping up are two different things. Boy, I'd like to know how many of my hard earned tax dollars go toward the long distance calls between Junior and his daddy... Whew...

Heard some congressman on C-Span yesterday talking about how his emails, letter and calls were 40 to 1 against a unilaterial strike. So, right now, Doug, your guy is looking real out of the mainstream.

But I sure am glad that folks are doing what I, and others have advised, in letting the powers at be know out dipleasure for continuing failed foriegn policies.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: DougR
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 11:45 AM

Bobert: you evidently read the post I wrote concerning our (the U.S.) position after the president's speech to the U.N. We are out of it. The ball is in the U.N.'s court. It also is in Saddam's court. It is up to the U.N. to enforce it's resolutions. If they don't, resolutions mean nothing to any nation. If Saddam refuses to abide by the agreements he made to end Desert Storm, the U. N. should assume that the Desert Storm conflict is not over, and U. N. forces should go into Iraq and take Saddam out. Now who do you suppose will comprise the majority of U. N. forces? Who will likely spend most of the money to finance the U. N. effort? Who will supply the majority of the weapons required? The U. S.? Yep!

I didn't catch the Letterman show Peg. Did Dave ask Clinton what had changed since 1998 that caused him to change his opinion as to what course the U. S. should take in regard to Iraq? In 1998 he was proposing military action against Iraq. So was Tom Daschle, the Hawk who suddenly has become a Dove. I doubt that was among the many "good" questions Dave posed to the former president though.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Peg
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 12:16 PM

Doug: I don't think Clinton has changed his opinion. Refined it, perhaps. He did not say that military action was out of the question but that to do so without first using the avenue of weapons inspection by way of the UN was not advisable.

One thing that has changed (which is obvious and perhaps why it did not need to be discussed) is that the American public, for the most part, is much more highly-sensitized to the implications of our foreign policy than we were a year and two days ago. Even though he seems to be charging ahead in bull-headed fashion, Bush has also had to backpedal a bit in recent days (though this may just be for appearances since we are amassing troops and making preparations in the Gulf as we speak). It is clear that public suport for him is high, but it is also clear that Americans are not overwhelmingly in favor of an invasion of Iraq. Some of them may only be worried about higher gasoline prices for their stupid SUVs, but plenty of them are worried that agression against Iraq without attempting to contain the chemical weapons situation could result in an unthinkable situation once again on American soil. The Europeans are understandably nervous as destruction of chemical or biological weapons depots in Iraq could have devastating implications for neighboring nations. I admire Blair for standing his ground because I consider him an intelligent and compassionate man... but then again, this is a man who is shockingly unwilling to acknowledge that the vast majority of his constituents are opposed to his stance in this matter. This worries me. But not as much as it worries me that our own leader is displaying this same contrariness, which is much more likely a result of his own obliviousness and stubborn Oedipal-driven ego.

Clinton seemed to be saying that Bush has not thought this through. I would agree. And Clinton's skills in foreign policy, while not exemplary, are nevertheless impressive far and away more practiced and informed than the shrub, who continues to deal in jingoistic platitudes and Bubba-friendly rhetoric.

Oh for a thoughtful and well-informed leader. One who managed to travel to Europe just once before he got "elected."

peg

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 12:34 PM

And just another thought or two, my friend... All of a sudden, when backed into a corner by public pressure, where does Junior run but to the United Nations. You asked who's gonna pay. Last I heard, it was Ted Tunrner paying the past due bills for the US. The US, over the last 30 years goes to the United Nations only as a PR stop but if they don't get their way they jkust go ahead and do what ever the heck they want to do anyway.

And this is what Jniour has implied. Either you guys do this or if not, then we will. This isn't about the security of the US or even the region for that matter. Its a big ol' PR thing for Junior to keep the big dog under the porch.

And as for violations. If we do invade, we will be in violation of Article 51. But like who cares, right. And we have allies, close allies, in the Middle East who have violated UN agreements over the last decade or so that we never went to the UN to complain about. Hmmmmmmm? Dual standards.

Come to think about this entire situation one can find dual standards as a primary driving force behind most of it....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: NicoleC
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 01:22 PM

Last poll I heard -- and this was about a week ago, so it may be quite different now -- was that about 37% of Americans believe there is sufficient evidence to attack Iraq.

That's not even close. The UN is not just a PR stop, it's vital to the Prez making a case to the American people. With everyone paying so much attention, an attack right now would severly damage his credibility with the American people.

Which is not to say it won't happen. There's a great article in a recent Christian Science Monitor (not exactly a bastion of liberal ideals) titled "Beware of Babies in Incubators." Last time a Bush wanted to attack Iraq and public support was low, a story suddenly started circulating about how the Iraqi invaders had taken Kuwaiti babies out of hospital incubators so they take the incubators. Average folks were justifiably outraged at that kind of cruelty, and Bush Sr. had the public support he needed for the war.

The story not only turned out to be completely false, but witnesses with fake identities purjured themselves before Congress and the UN to testify to the event.

The articles point was, of course, that we need to evaluate the actual evidence, and beware of PR stories.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 01:42 PM

"For while Bush made token gestures towards the UN...the kind of UN resolution he sketched out would be essentially the same as Austria's ultimatum to Serbia in July 1914: written in such a way as to produce rejection, and thereby to lead to war."

I was interested to see that same parallel drawn this time by Anatol Lieven of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington DC, in a piece in The Guardian today, from which that quote comes. Bush as Emperor Franz-Josef? Or maybe Kaiser Bill?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 02:23 PM

Well, This is Bobert's 17 year old degenerate computer-obssessed-hair-dyed-2-diff.-colors-all-pierced-up-n-ready-to-go-son. Ol' Bobert is eatin his lunch, and I'm supposed to be workin an all, but nobody ever done defined the word work to me, so I'z not that good with this whole responsible working thing. I decided to read up on this thing I like to call 'the catbox' well, I'z readin the posts, Figgered I pretty much knew the story from the news and all them good sources, and I should make a comment er 2. First comment is, hospital grilled cheeze sammiches are yummy and cooked, but not burnt. Second comment is how Emporer Junior thinks alot of things, but can't remember them when it comes time to discuss anything...I give him points for...WAit..no I dont. Sorry. First of all, he's got empty-box-itis, he thinks we all have empty-box-itis too, well thats the way it seems anyway. I'm not too political, I'd rather keep out of politics and keep my friends, but this thing gets me so mad I could....I could....I could chase down a raccoon and hog-tie it with it's own tail I'm so mad. Where's his support. Where's the proof, I mean really, Where be the proof at? I got some proof at home, 200 proof, good stuf...But that aint even scratchin the surface, he thinks that cuz we're america and we're so BIG AND BAD, and everybody lives our rule, like Dictator of the world. But we're just a country, living like we choose to live, if some country lives otherwise its not our business. As long as they hurtin people its all good, well it might not be good, but it aint our business. We got a world to make peaceful and all it seems we're doing is stirrin up war after war after war after war, etc. Can you think of any changes that have been brought about since El Supreme Being: Shrub came into office? I belive, now, I belive that war isn't the answer for this situation. Why kill people for killin people, you see, that brings us down to their level. That make us as bad as they are, we need to show them we're not like that, manipulate them with some good actions and by *NOT* talking about war, we shoudln't even discuss war, its only going to fire 'em up and make them run their moutshs, then Ol'J-R. is gonna say 'they were threatening the lives of american citizens and thats all I can take and I can't take no more!!! ***pushes little red button*** ((Nuklear Launce Detected)) \ \ ~~~>>>[(NUKE)]> 5...4...3...2..1...*+*~BOOOM~*+* / /

'The American people are now safe from Iraq threats, but it would seem that ***picks number out of lotto machine*** 47, powell, whats 47..***looks over list*** It would appear that China, ladies and gentlmen, China is making threats against American lives, And thats all I can take..and I cant take no more!!!! ***pushes little red button........"

It will continue until the 2004 election when he gets outta there unless something happens.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 02:29 PM

Now I really gotta go to work, These views do not represent the views of my Dad. I am 17 and stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: DougR
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 02:55 PM

Thanks Peg. I wish I had watched Letterman.

Bobert: I don't think we would be in violation of ANY U. N. Resolutions were we to invade Iraq. We would simply be finishing the job not done by Desert Storm. Saddam agreed to abide by Sixteen U. N. Resolutions as a proviso for ending Desert Storm. He has not adhered to even one of them.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 06:51 PM

Well, heck, there, Dougie. I believe the Golf of Tonkin Resolution is still in effect so, what the hey, why not just go back there, too?

Doug, Doug, Doug... Man, I had allready given you more credut than to buy that crapola. Come on, I think we'd agree that dragging out a 13 year old resolution for a war that ended after about 30 days is kinds like really grasping for straws.

But, heck, the entire premise is based on smoke and mirrors... so wht not?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART FIVE
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 06:54 PM

Ahhhh, yeah, I'll second that remark bu my son that his views do not represent mine. No wonder he didn't finish his putter work while I was at lunch today.

Bobert