 sj |
||
|
||
BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq
|
|
|
Subject: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: michaelr Date: 10 Jul 03 - 07:41 PM As those of us who were worried about the Resident's headlong rush to war predicted, resistance in Iraq to US occupation is growing daily, and US and Iraqi casualties are on the rise, with no exit strategy in sight. Now the government is saying the troops may have to remain there for a year, and the cost to US taxpayers, according to Rumsfeld, has doubled from the previous estimate of $2 billion per month. And one by one, the Resident's stated reasons for going to war are being exposed as the lies we knew them for all along: 1. There is no link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda/9-11. 2. There are no weapons of mass destruction (other than ours). 3. Hussein did not attempt to buy uranium in Niger. (Bush knew this before he made the claim in his State-of-the-Union address.) 4. The Iraqi people do not see our soldiers as their liberators. MoveOn.org is asking Congress to begin an investigation into the deliberate deception of the American people by the Resident and his henchmen. You can add your voice to this groundswell by clicking on this link. Let's continue to express out patriotic dissent and work to hold the administration accountable for their unforgivable war crimes. Remember: If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention. Cheers, Michael |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: kendall Date: 10 Jul 03 - 08:08 PM Viet Nam brought Johnson down, maybe Iraq will bring resident Bush down. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Amos Date: 10 Jul 03 - 08:26 PM The real question is, will it bring the mob that thought he was so goddamned righteous to their senses? At least one generation of 'em? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Don Firth Date: 10 Jul 03 - 08:38 PM Already done. I signed up with MoveOn a while back. I just heard on this morning's news (NPR) that they're now saying we'll have to keep 145,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely. Way to go, George! #@%&*@!! (mutter mutter) Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: toadfrog Date: 10 Jul 03 - 08:51 PM The worst of it is, even if we get rid of Bush, we are not rid of quagmire. Please consider: British and American troops are being shot at. The whole country is overrun with looters and bandits. In Baghdad, honest folks can't leave their homes. We disbanded the Iraqui Army, and gave those soldiers no food and nothing to do. Now there are more than 100,000 trained fighters running around loose, armed to the teeth, hungry as hell and mad as hell. Not good. But, we are told, all those people who are shooting at our soldiers are holdout Sadaamists. They will all go away when we catch Sadaam, we are told. Does anyone believe that? Rumsfeld and his guy in Iraq seemed to have operated on the good old Republican theory - if someone is hungry, it is because he/she lacks moral fiber, let 'm eat hay. But it isn't Rumsfeld who will pay, it is the poor grunt on the ground - and a lot of innocent Iraqis. I anticipate being told that I Hate America and won't support our servicepeople. But I really don't want those guys to get shot. And they must be getting extremely tired of Iraq by now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Bobert Date: 10 Jul 03 - 09:55 PM Well, like I pointed out on another thread, white US males control the politics of the US. They have the money and they purdy much buy what ever government they want and these folks have been so dumbed down that there is nothing that anyopne can say that will get them to see just how sucked into the game they are. After the last two-plus years of an administration of severly dumbed down white men it is hard to fathom that, other than Al Sharpton, the rest of the field of incumbants and challengers are more, ahhh, white males? Is there any end in sight? And, yeah, lots of us were telling the DougR's and Teribus's and others that this is exactly where we were going to find ourselves and they wrote reem after reem telling us just how un-informed we were and now where are these folks? Hiding under there bed. That's where. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Amos Date: 10 Jul 03 - 09:59 PM Um...Bobert...ole buddy -- I would suggest that though it is a very convenient label, there are plenty of white males who don't buy governments -- you and me for example. And that there are plenty of white females who pull power strings over the breakfast table. And that there are plenty of wheelers and dealers who are not white. Even not male!! Maybe we need a better generality to bitch about, eh? Say, where IS ole DougR these days? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: michaelr Date: 10 Jul 03 - 10:02 PM Don, that number actually translates to 435,000 troops -- 145,000 to be rotated home; 145,000 there as occupation force, and another 145,000 to replace them when it's their turn to come home. (And so on for years?) Toadfrog, reports are that troop morale is at an all-time low, and bound to get worse. Where are all these soldiers going to come from? It's relatively painless to volunteer for service in peacetime, but I'd imagine enlistment will go way down (if it isn't already) once the kids figure out what sort of hell awaits them. Amos, I guess we can hope... and work to educate them. I wonder what our resident ostrich, DougR, would say to the Resident's lies now being exposed? He was so willing at the time to give Bush the benefit of the doubt... Cheers, Michael |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Janie Date: 10 Jul 03 - 10:41 PM I get no pleasure in seeing my fears and predictions come true. Wake up, America!!! For many of us who post here, this is our second experience with our government getting us in a completely wrong war--Oh, the ARROGANCE of our government. AND, Many of our government leaders are of our generation, and experienced 1st hand the terrible effect the Vietnam war had on our society. Did those of us who were socially active then learn nothing from our experience about politics and the execution of power? Or is it that one can not wield offical power without allowing ones self to be co-opted? Why have we not raised a majority generation behind us who cared to think deeply and be involved, and to elect and support congressmen whose votes generally our beliefs and values? I am so angry. I feel so powerless and ineffective. I am absolutely heartsick. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Bobert Date: 10 Jul 03 - 10:45 PM Amos, Yeah, I know... I'z jus' messin' with folks tonight. But... when you lokk at the polls (if you can beleive them which is another story) Bush's highest approval ratings come from white guys. Now, that being said, I don't think its too far a stretch to say that the folks who were most instrumental in having the current squaters in power, are, ahhhhh,.... white guys. Makes ya wonder? Hmmmm? Who has most of the wealth? Ahhh, ... white guys. Whose got the government cature? Ahhhh, guess. Who spent the most to the campaignes to get these "white guys" in power? Ahhhh, guess, part 2... See where I'm going with this? Ahhh, now I'm not saying that all white guys is bad. Just lots of 'em. Like think back on yer life. Have you ever been fired from a job. If so, it was probably a white guy that did it. Been egvicted? Been sued? Been accosted? Been laid off? Been repremanded? Been? Been...? Awww, nevermind. Jus in one of them dark (pun intended) moods... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: LadyJean Date: 10 Jul 03 - 10:51 PM I would love to have registered my indignation, but the petition is to someone in California, where I neither reside nor vote. Could you help us benighted easterners please? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Janie Date: 10 Jul 03 - 10:56 PM Michael, Here's another that could get to the right representative.I couldn't find my way back to the same issue once I signed up. Interesting site, by the way. Thanks for the link. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Amergin Date: 10 Jul 03 - 11:02 PM Iraq...the 51st state.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Bobert Date: 10 Jul 03 - 11:14 PM Heck, why stop at 51, Amerigin. Howz 30, 'er 73,... 'er two or three hundred? Heck, the flag is gonna look more like a clear winter sky with all them stars. Hmmmmmm? Gettin' back to Iraq as the 51st state. Like wouldn't it be wild if they elected Saddam to the Senate? Hey, he could write a book, have a big house in Martha's Vineyard right down the road from the Bushes and be doing a book tour for his latest book entitled "Missed Me"... and all of this in just a few years... So like why stop with Iraq? Howz Senator Kadafi sound? Or Senator Bin Laden? Hmmmmm? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: michaelr Date: 11 Jul 03 - 12:00 AM Lady Jean and Janie -- there's a link on that page that says: "Congressman Woolsey not your representative? Click here". It will take you to a list of all members of congress, where you can find yours. Cheers, Michael |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Mark Clark Date: 11 Jul 03 - 01:10 AM Why do you think the Resident is popular? Because some talking head on your television set said so? Do you seriously think the people who bought Congress, the Judiciary and the media weren't smart enough to buy the pollsters too? Or do you think the pollsters weren't for sale? (Support your reasoning with concrete examples.) - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Geoff the Duck Date: 11 Jul 03 - 04:27 AM Here's a thread you may not have spotted BLICKY . Read the instructions carefully, then follow them. 51st State - I thought England became that when Maggie Thatcher crawled up Ronnie Reagan's backside. Nowadays we have Blair trying to insert himself up Bush's. A PAIR OF PRIZE LIARS by anyone's standards. Over here Blair is trying EVERYTHING he possibly can, to try and distract the public from the fact that the report he used to get Parliament to vote for war, is a total pack of lies. Quack! GtD. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: kendall Date: 11 Jul 03 - 05:39 AM Did anyone see the poll on CNN last night? 80% of thise responding said Bush lied about Iraq and nuclear weapons. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 11 Jul 03 - 07:02 AM On UK Channel 4, Jon Snow asked their middle-east correspondent Lindsay Hilsum to sum up the mood in Baghdad. "It's terribly sad, Jon," she said. "I have spent time in Baghdad over several years and the people have always been friendly and welcoming. Now that's all gone. There is a real sense of danger, and no-one trusts anyone." US troops in Baghdad are so inept at the task they've been given that they're now being trained by the Brits, who were never needed in the first place. In northern Iraq, the US tactic is to destroy any remaining relationship with one-time NATO buddy Turkey, just as I and many others predicted even in the immediate aftermath of 9-11. It isn't hindsight to say that the post-victory aftermath was always going to be harder than the war. Most of the world was saying it beforehand, and the administration even paid lip-service to this view. Yet not a thought was given to the issues involved. In Afghanistan, less than three per cent of the land area is under ISAF stewardship. The rest is left to warlords, and in many communities life is as bad as ever it was with the Taliban. Attempts at sowing the seeds of a US trained army in Kabul are not helped when its soldiers get shot by their American friends. Having learnt nothing whatsoever in Iraq and Afghanistan, the administration now runs round threatening Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, you name it, but always standing shoulder to shoulder with the criminal Sharon. US morality Bush-style is now seen for what it is - victor's justice, at any price. Guantanamo prisoners will be convicted even if they have to be convicted in secret, without their own lawyers, and no opportunity to cross-examine their accusers. No wonder the US will not condemn Sharia law in Saudi Arabia. As for the Camp Delta motto, "Honorbound to defend freedom," which apparently marines parrot at each other when saluting - what sickening hypocrisy. It would have taken real imagination for a comedian to have written that slogan into a parody. There has been one tiny bit of progress though. The lynchmob element at Mudcat, so vociferous with messages of revenge and retribution after 9-11, has been shamed to silence. At least until the Holywood blockbuster "Saving Private Lynch" allows them to glow with pride again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Hrothgar Date: 11 Jul 03 - 07:15 AM Janie, when you said "Many of our government leaders are of our generation, and experienced 1st hand the terrible effect the Vietnam war had on our society" I hope you didn't think that they were stupid enough to actually see active service. I think they lived their nice, comfortable, cushioned lives, with odd inconveniences like having to pretend to join the National Guard, and only talked to people who shared their own ideas. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar Date: 11 Jul 03 - 07:44 AM Fortunately the shrub has a short attention span, so maybe the US will just pull out overnight. Then again, maybe that's not how Halliburton got where it is today. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: TIA Date: 11 Jul 03 - 07:45 AM The "ostriches" will never let on that they might have been wrong. Like their hero King George, they will simply re-state their original position to match the facts. (Term borrowed from Richard Cohen...see the blicky). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: GUEST Date: 11 Jul 03 - 08:33 AM Janie - it is a sad state of affairs, but please don't let it overwhelm you to the point of helplessness and despair. Please try to cheer up - play some music. The best thing you can do is stay politically aware, speak out when inspired to do so, and vote sensibly, which I'm sure you know and I'm betting you already do. Best wishes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Janie Date: 11 Jul 03 - 09:28 AM MSNBC quoted Bush yesterday as admitting we have a "security issue" in Iraq. A security issue? A Security Issue? A SECURITY ISSUE?!!!??? Outrageous. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Rapparee Date: 11 Jul 03 - 09:33 AM I wish to hell that folks would stop using the National Guard as an example of draft dodging during 'Nam time! Yes, there were rich cats' sons, and I'd name some except that would be beating around The Bush, who joined the Guard because of "pull." But! Dear old LBJ activated 24,000 reservists and Guardsmen in 1968; of these 10,000 were sent to Vietnam and elsewhere. I bloody well know, since both my brother and I were among them -- and he went to Chu Lai and I went to Korea ("blood relatives in a a combat zone" and all that). That Guard unit won a second Meritorious Unit citation to go with their first, which was won on Guadacanal. Members also won medals from the Bronze Star with V downwards. Another unit, of the 151st Infantry from Indiana's Guard, was LRRP -- and they "enjoyed" a shower of "Stars" as well, several being Silver as well as Bronze with V. My cousin served as a point man with the 9th Division. Not all of the reservists and Guardsmen came home -- we were lucky, since all who were activated originally came back (although some, like my brother, with healed physical wounds and unhealed psychological ones). Now, GOD DAMN IT!, knock it off, okay??? There were and are f**koffs in every outfit.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Rapparee Date: 11 Jul 03 - 09:38 AM Sorry for the rant, but having been there and done that, we get right touchy about the Guard being called cowards and draft dodgers. None of use wanted to go, fer goshshakes. And sitting in SEATAC airport, waiting for the flight back home, one side of the aisle in uniform and the other with long hair, neither side talking to each other even though they're all the same age, each side knowing that with a little twist of fate the sides could be switched.... Actually, I'd much rather have been at Woodstock. And the Guard and Reserves are often called up today, and they die just as they did in the '60s. Sorry about the rant, but it's a nerve. And yeah, I agree with the Quagmire.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: redhorse Date: 11 Jul 03 - 10:48 AM If the US government thinks it'll be in a position to pull out the troops in just a year, it's only be because they think they'll be able to pass the buck of looking after Iraq to some other sucker. Look out for Bush softening his position towards UN and agreeing that maybe they should after all have a "peacekeeping role". Maybe that was what he needed Blair's support for; so the British would be there to hold the baby when he cuts and runs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: GUEST,B Date: 11 Jul 03 - 12:55 PM Cut and run is what his detractors want, not what President Bush wants. If Bush were really a liar we would see WMD coming out of very hole-in-the-ground in Iraq, planted by us (US). Easily done if you think about it. We have about 28,000 homocides in the US each year. Disputed numbers, granted, and "murder" and "homocide" are not exactly the same thing. We have lost about 100 young men in Iraq by combat/assination and about the same in vehicle accidents. None of us is happy about any of this. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Jul 03 - 01:49 PM Looking back to the 40's, the Germans also proved very adept at scoring quick military victories with their superb military forces...but not nearly so good at dealing with the aftermath in the conquered areas. This is because the main talent of highly organized aggressors is destruction, not society-building...and also because people just don't like being invaded and conquered by foreigners for some reason (?). Strange, isn't it? - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Don Firth Date: 11 Jul 03 - 09:22 PM Just an observation: GUEST,B's quoting of homocide statistics makes it sound as if it's safer to be in uniform in Iraq than it is to be back home in the USA. Lot of food for thought there. . . . In the meantime, how come in the background I can hear echoes of Pete Seeger singing Knee Deep in the Big Muddy? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Rapparee Date: 11 Jul 03 - 09:30 PM Armies aren't designed to rebuild countries, never have been. Armies are designed to fight and win wars. During WWII, there were "Civil Affairs Units" sent as part of an invasion -- for example, my father served in the 4th CAU in Manila. These units were specially trained and supported to provide temporary government, police, and infrastructure support until the local civilian government could again take over. Regular soldiers, infantry, armor, artillery, MPs, aren't trained or focused for civil affairs and shouldn't be expected to handle such duties. Seems to me like someone has blundered.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Ebbie Date: 11 Jul 03 - 10:31 PM Like most of us, I'm heartsick about the whole thing. The only thing I'm glad of at this moment is that the gungho, chop chop mudcats who crowed about our easy 'win' in Iraq are not at this moment making excuses for the dismal situation, complete with references to the "battle plan", as though they expected us to swallow it. I appreciate their silence. Does anyone care to make a(ny) prediction as to a likely scenario for the next two years in the US? Will we find ourselves spread so thin across the globe that we implode? Or will we become a lauded Superman who flies to the aid of the downtrodden, afflicted and poor? Will we enter a boom economy as we make war- or will we have to suck it up and 'use it up, make it do or do without'? For the record, I'm in favor of sending our share of peacekeeping troops into Liberia under the umbrella and leadership of the UN and in conjunction with other countries' troops adhering to the various treaties and agreements. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: mg Date: 11 Jul 03 - 10:31 PM Of course there are many problems...how could there not be? Remove the police structure here and see what happens overnight. But if anyone can stand to hear some good news, and please don't read further if it will upset you, I just read a very encouraging report from a major in the Corps of Engineers...reporting on how the oil was being pumped, power was being restored, water was being somewhat purified and pumped. It is going to be a very prosperous country, and there will be a ripple effect. We do need to have a "civil affairs" setup, and we need to specific ally train peacekeepers...someone wisely suggested that that is a very good place for women in the military...you certainly need some for checkpoint situations involving women civilians, and you don't have some of the problems that you have with a force of young males in a country.. I think from the start there should have been plans to use certain segments of the Iraqi Army for security and of course for engineering....the Iraqi engineers pleaded to be put to use...of course there are still military considerations but who knows... mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Amos Date: 11 Jul 03 - 11:24 PM If we want to play Empire builder, for goodness' sake, we have to learn how to build Empires. The French colons and the Brits both left behind them very workable infrastructure -- no matter how wrong their colonizations were, the machinery for hygeine, education, and production were in place in Rabat, Tangiers, Kuala Lumpur, and the major cities of Injjuh. Maybe these places would have done better to evolve their own ways of building sewers and pipes -- but how many ways can there be? The point is that if you are going to overthrow order and bring chaos, you better be ready to put in some alternative form of order, or some one else will step up and do it for you. Saddam was suppressing the hell out of the people of Baghdad, but it was an orderly suppression. (Of course, graves are orderly and quiet, too!). It was really dumb not to have a plan of restoration in hand and ready to roll out the minute it was militarily feasible. What did Bush think -- spontaneous civilization was going to spring full-blown from the smoke and blood of his little battle? Sheesh! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Janie Date: 11 Jul 03 - 11:36 PM The die is cast, I fear. IMHO Bush and the policies he has set into motion will result in the United States government causing more death, destruction and terror in the world than Osama bin Laden ever dreamed of being able to cause. We will continue to lose civil rights, which is a much greater threat to our democracy than any outside force could be. We are indeed entering a quagmire. There is still time to turn back and limit the damage done to our country and our world, but it will have to happen quickly--and it ain't gonna. With a nine year old son that I absolutely will not see senselessly sacrificed to this, my Country's terribly misbegotten "mission", I am just starting to research emmigration options. I have little doubt that the USA will still be deeply and tragically embroiled in this when he turns 18. President Bush and terrorists all act out of conviction. Pretty damn scary. Those who do not recognize that belief and truth are not synonyms are always dangerous, because they can never recognize or acknowledge the legitimacy of another perspective. This is one of the main roots of war, and what the propoganda machines play to in rallying a population to a "cause". Let there be mercy. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Deckman Date: 11 Jul 03 - 11:46 PM It's like we (us) Americans DON'T learn! I first served in the Army in that strange period between Korea and the beginnings of Nam. I was in active reserve status (medics) during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Then came the Berlin Wall, and guess what, I was active duty again. I served willingly. Since those times, I've observed mistake after mistake after mistake in U.S. foreign policy and wars. I am EXTREMELY angry and frustrated. I do all that I know how to do. I read. I study. I discuss. I ask questions. I ALWAYS vote. And yet I feel completly powerless. When was the election held that voted the U.S. as "BOSS OF THE WORLD?" I know I didn't sleep through it, as I keep alert. Perhaps it will be through serious and thoughtful discussion groups like this, worldwide through the freedom of the Internet, that will save us from ourselves. I dunno? Bob |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Amos Date: 12 Jul 03 - 12:15 AM Hear, hear, Bob. Keep on staying alert--it's our only defense against creeping mass hypnosis. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Janie Date: 12 Jul 03 - 12:25 AM I hope so Bob. We need to talk WITH those who don't share our beliefs about the course on which our country should be. Nothing much will change if we just talk among ourselves. Preaching to the choir, you know. I for one welcome the serious thoughts of those who thought (or still think) we did the right thing to go into Iraq. I want to know--as events at home and abroad unfold, in what direction(s) everyone's thoughts are evolving. Our best hopes for enfluencing others toward our own point of view, is to first understand and appreciate theirs. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: toadfrog Date: 12 Jul 03 - 01:05 AM Janie: Yes, in theory of course you are right. And I did hear someone once give a thoughtful opinion to the effect it would be right to go into Iraq. One could build a respectable case, for example, that it was necessary somehow to control Sadaam, that the sanctions were ultimately even worse for the Iraqis than invading them, and that the whole area had to be stopped from gradually sliding into disaster. If someone used that argument, I'd have to think for a while about my answer. And we could intelligently try to persuade each other, or agree to disagree. But the majority don't think like that. They think Sadaam caused the crash at the World Trade Center, or at least supported Al Quaeda and was about to give them chemical weapons and maybe A-bombs, and that we had to invade Iraq to Fight Terrism [sic] and Eradicate Evil. And if they fervently believe things that just aren't true, what do you say? Just, "no, you're wrong, you idiot"? Even worse, a lot of people are just plain proud their country is powerful and can kick foreigners around. What do you say to them? Try convincing GUEST Claymore, say. An exercise in frustration, ending in a screaming match. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: GUEST,B Date: 12 Jul 03 - 02:08 PM Don Firth: Thanks. I would rather be a soldier stationed in Iraq than be forced to live in some of our urban areas. General statement: There is a difference between "nation building" and "society building". I think the US is a great nation. As far as a society, you tell me. On your next vacation, does anyone plan to visit So Central LA? So Bronx? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Don Firth Date: 12 Jul 03 - 02:10 PM The reason the Bush administration went into this thing without an exit strategy is because they don't plan to leave. This was their first major step in establishing a military presence in the Middle East. Rather than waiting for a withdrawal of our troops, watch for our presence in the Middle East to expand. Don Firth Addendum:— Interesting! I tried to go to the Project for the New American Century's web site so I could supply you with a link to the relevant article (written by those who are currently members of the Bush administration) so you could read their intentions written in their own words. But this morning I got: Network ErrorUnable to request URL from hostMaybe too many people have been exploring this site, reading the articles, learning the Bush administration's true intentions, and not liking it much. Anyway, here is a link to an article that gives a brief synopsis of some of the things found on the PNAC web site—> BOINK! In this article, Pitt does not exaggerate. He merely tells you what he learned by reading stuff on the PNAC web site. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Deckman Date: 12 Jul 03 - 02:22 PM Thanks for posting that information Don. Reading it carefully is enough to put me over the edge. I wonder where this is all going to end? Bob |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Don Firth Date: 12 Jul 03 - 02:27 PM By the way, GUEST,B--I wasn't suggesting anything like that. I was merely pointing to the irony of it apparently being safer in a war zone than it is on some city streets in the U. S. There seem to be a lot of people in this country who are not particularly bothered by violence and even regard it as high on the agenda as a method for solving whatever problems they might have. Too bad so many of them are in the government. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Janie Date: 12 Jul 03 - 07:10 PM Don--it is getting scarier and scarier, isn't it? Toadfrog--all I know is name calling never works. And it takes two to have a screaming match. Educating others is more likely to be more persuasive than arguing with them. And to really influence some one, you have got to understand where they are starting from. Can't do that without respectful listening. Besides, it isn't necessary to bring everyone over to your point of view, just enough people who vote to either oust Bush or make it clear to him that he will lose the election if he doesn't change his foreign policy. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Rapparee Date: 12 Jul 03 - 09:11 PM Upon reflection, I don't think that there will be an Iraqi quagmire, or that such a thing already exists. I think that it's an Afghan-Iraqi quagmire, and soon to be an Afghan-Iraqi-Liberian quagmire. "...we were neck deep in the Big Muddy..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Deckman Date: 12 Jul 03 - 10:04 PM Rapaire ... Hmmmm? Maybe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: GUEST,B Date: 12 Jul 03 - 10:41 PM (alias Claymore) Thank you, Rapaire. Some of us appreciate your service. I too was National Guard in the Viet Nam era, just lucky no one called me. "Society building" was used where I feel "nation building" was meant, somewhere back in this thread. Shure no one has the _____ to explain their position on this one? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Bobert Date: 12 Jul 03 - 11:02 PM Saddest thing about the "quagmire" is that it has marginalized the US as a respected super power that sometimes does what world opinion expects of it, such as in Bosnia, for example. In many forms of self defense one is taught to use the "minumum force" necessary but after the invasion of two countries in the last 18 or so months, the US can no longer hide under the *self defense* banner. Sure, it can go ahead and invade one country after another until it itself implodes from the costs of doing so, but it can no longer expect the rest of the world to buy any of it's rationales for going to war... Yeah, right, Us! Sure they're ou to get you... or us... Hahahahah... Good news for the new generation of bad people.... Just something for you neo-cons to ponder... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Deckman Date: 13 Jul 03 - 12:47 AM Bobert ... Question. What is a neo-con? Bob |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Don Firth Date: 13 Jul 03 - 01:39 AM Neo-conservative. George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Karl Rove, Paul Wolfowitz, Dan Quayle, and Ollie North are all what has come to be called "neo-conservatives" or "neo-cons." What marks them as distinct from old fashioned conservatives such as Barry Goldwater is that conservatives like Goldwater are much too liberal and progressive for them. I would not necessarily go so far as to say that neo-cons are crypto-fascists, but when you get that far to the right, the lines of demarcation do tend to get a bit fuzzy. Authoritarianism, elitism, militarism, erosion of civil liberties, a drive for world empire. . . . Well, certainly not! This is America! It can't happen here! Can it? What some right-wingers will try to tell you is the words "neo-conservatives" or "neo-cons" refer to former liberals who have seen the light and have converted to the true faith, but that's pure hog wallow. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Hrothgar Date: 13 Jul 03 - 07:27 AM One of the little problems that the US might have found in Iraq is that the only organised bodies capable of running a stable government are the Islamic religious groups. I can just imagine how popular that idea is with Dubya & Co. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Jul 03 - 08:35 AM An interesting term "neo-cons". In the light of the situation via-a-vis the the French, I imagine it would be a term that they might find particularly fitting to refer to the peopple running the show in Washington. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Bobert Date: 13 Jul 03 - 08:40 AM Thanks, Don, fir the assist. But really, Deckman and others, the US has painted itself into a corner with this pre-emptive doctrine in terms of having cooperative partners. I Bush's haste to war, he all but drove a stake thru the hear of the United Nations, he angered and humiliated our allies and he shreaded our credibility in the world's eye. I don't think it is possible for this administration to mend the damage. It is my hopes, however, that the next administartion will abandon this doctrine and worlk their butts off trying to restore some stability to the world community. If not, that corner is going to get smaller and smaller... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: GUEST,B Date: 13 Jul 03 - 12:33 PM The term(s) Neo-con, neo-conservative or neo-Conservative is the latest effort of liberals to define their enemies. A straw dog that the Left will attack and destroy before your eyes, making them feel better. Kennedy would be far more conservative than any mainstream Repub. of 2003, and proud of it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Don Firth Date: 13 Jul 03 - 01:24 PM Yeah, GUEST,B, that's what the neo-cons keep trying to say--now. But I think the tag got picked up when one of those folks listed in my post just above proudly announced, "We are the new conservatives!" So the name stuck. Too bad. So sad. Perfectly descriptive, though, when you consider that they regard themselves as a new breed of conservative as distinct from the old breed, and some of the old conservatives are a bit appalled at their excesses. Also, if you don't like labels, don't use them yourself. Example: when the neo-cons accuse those who disagree with them as being "unpatriotic." Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Deckman Date: 13 Jul 03 - 01:26 PM Bobert ... perfectly said. Bob |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: GUEST,B Date: 13 Jul 03 - 02:26 PM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: GUEST,B Date: 13 Jul 03 - 02:35 PM The man who lumped himself into a goup fell into the same trap of group identification. Most Americans are individuals, at least to some degree. It is easier to invent a group so that you can blame (hate) many people all at once. Close relative of the scapegoat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Don Firth Date: 13 Jul 03 - 05:34 PM Scapegoat for precisely what, GUEST,B? Looks like you're groping for a rejoinder here. Groups do like to identify themselves, and these folks ("new conservatives," "neo-conservatives," or "neo-cons") have identified themselves as a group. I'm hardly name-calling, as you are trying to imply, when I use the name they applied to themselves. If you're trying to refute what I say by accusing me of "name-calling," sorry--no sale! Attacking a person (argumentum ad hominem) instead of addressing the points of a statement or argument he or she has made is a well-known logical fallacy and is invariably used as a diversionary tactic--an effort to draw attention away from the real issues. You're going to have to do a whole lot better than that. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Greg F. Date: 13 Jul 03 - 05:58 PM The Neo-Cons as crypto-fascists? I don't see anything hidden or unavowed about their fascist bent. They're quite proud of it, in fact. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Jul 03 - 06:10 PM It's not accurate to describe them as fascists. Rattlesnakes and crocodiles are both pretty dangerous, but it is not a good idea to confuse the two, just because they can both kill you. They are dangerous in different ways, and are vulnerable in different ways, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Amergin Date: 13 Jul 03 - 06:33 PM jesus christ, don...that article sent chills down my spine....makes me wonder if their trying to get us all killed.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: toadfrog Date: 13 Jul 03 - 06:35 PM Hey, Bobert! You sometimes make a lot of sense, and can really write English, when you try. Keep it up! I hope, as you do, that some future administration may someday get us out of the mess this one got us into. But I doubt it. In the case of Vietnam, every government from Truman on down got us one step deeper, because no one wanted to back off and be called unpatriotic. I'm very much afraid that Iraq is going to be like Vietnam (without the jungle). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Bobert Date: 13 Jul 03 - 08:29 PM Kind of a sandy Vietnam, toadfrog? Well, yeah, it's looking very much like that. The difference between Iraq and Vietnam is that, hmmmmmmm, well..... not a lot, come to think of it. Vitnam: rubber and tin. Iraq: petroleum. Hmmmmm? I'm seeing the pattern here. Man, I'd hate to be, ahhhh, like Etheopia right about now 'cause it has oil, too. Might of fiact, I'd hate to have much of anything worth stealin' right now.... Like I said, this doctrine is gonna get us hurt in the long run and the long run might not be too far off. Bush must go and someone with a bigger view of peacefull co-exhistence and cooperation is very much needed.... Like yesterday! Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Ebbie Date: 13 Jul 03 - 08:49 PM Google, for 'Project for the New American Century': The page cannot be displayed. The page you are looking for is currently unavailable. The Web site might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your browser settings. Very interesting. Do you suppose "they're" trying to keep from needlessly alarming paranoid readers? Will there be a paper "explaining" to the ignorant masses what was really meant in the original paper? disdainful snort... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Janie Date: 13 Jul 03 - 09:07 PM With colossal effort, there is still time for the American people to force our government to change, or to at least change its policies. But the American electorate is the only thing left in the world that has the power to stop the government of the United States of America from doing whatever it damn well pleases. It may be impossible, I don't know, but those of us who appear to see where Iraq is taking us have a moral responsibility to work to raise the consciousness of the American people about the pervasive changes that are beginning to occur in our society, and that are self-generated. All of us who care about this need to start working very hard in our own communities to educate people, and get them to take political action. I am not a good organizer or initiater of collective action. But I, for one, will be standing up in church to speak about this issue, will engage my co-workers in discussion to get them more involved, will talk to my extended family, etc. These are simple things that we can all do. We can copy some of the well-reasoned discussions from people like Don Firth (see about any of the threads on national policy) and pass it out or mail it to other people. A print copy is more likely to be carefully read than an e-mail. And taking the time and expense to mail it conveys how important you hold it to be. Hope I don't sound preachy. I'm justing getting fired up, and writing it out helps make the work begin to seem tangible and doable. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Greg F. Date: 13 Jul 03 - 10:40 PM I dunno, Kevin- seems to be a sort of convergence in the works (neo-cons & fascists, that is, not rattlesnakes & crocodiles)- now more similarities than differences. Time will tell. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Bobert Date: 13 Jul 03 - 10:54 PM Janie: That is exactly what needs to be done. If everyone would just stop for a minute and decide what it is that is important, then lots of folks would fear nothing from expressing their feelings in front of their church, their peers and their families. Thois is the way we're gonna take back our sister and brothers. One at a time.... Sorry, Boss Hog, but America has been taken off the market.... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Amergin Date: 13 Jul 03 - 11:31 PM When i was growing up i frequently had nightmares about nuclear holocausts...for that was still (is was still correct in this instance?) a very valid threat in the 70's and 80's...I have been having them again quite a bit in the last few months... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 14 Jul 03 - 04:56 AM Perfectly, Amergin. (Correct.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Don Firth Date: 14 Jul 03 - 01:18 PM Kevin, and others, I'm not really all that sure that the word "fascist" is necessarily excessive and inappropriate, nor, for that matter, should one declare it "inaccurate" without closer examination. If you use this term in relation to the current Bush administration, Republicans will scream blue murder and put you down as a hysterical kook. Democrats will blanch, say you are overstating the case, and try to shush you up because they feel you're embarrassing them. But many people (I would venture to say most) have a somewhat distorted and inaccurate idea of what actually constitutes fascism. This comes from the historical picture that most people have of Nazi Germany, fascist Italy under Mussolini, and Spain under Franco. Each of these three variations on fascism has its own unique images. The most vivid, of course, are images of black uniforms, jackboots, swastika armbands, and shouts of "Sieg Heil!" Or Mussolini's massive chin as he stands on a balcony with his arms folded, staring, like a Roman emperor, down at the assembled multitudes. But these are only images and outward manifestations. They vary from case to case, and do not constitute the essence of fascism. For a clearer interpretation of the word "fascism," perhaps one should go to the source. Benito Mussolini, considered the "father of fascism," said, "Fascism should more properly be called 'corporatism,' since it is the merger of state and corporate power." The word fascism comes from the Latin, referring to a fasces which is a bundle of sticks tied around an ax. This was used in Rome as a symbol of imperial authority. Mussolini is said to have adopted it as a symbol of the unity of corporations (the sticks) with the authority of the State (the ax). The unity of corporations with the authority of the State. Work it out, folks. Work it out. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Teribus Date: 15 Jul 03 - 07:21 AM The use of fasces by the Italian dictator Benito Mussolini is quite another story. In 1921, he called his political movement Fasci di combattimento, fascio being the Italian word for peasant organizations and labor unions. When il duce chose the ancient Roman fasces as symbol of the fascist party, he was at the same time playing with the similarity of the words fascio and fasces, chosing an ancient symbol, and drawing a parallel between fascism and earlier progressive movements. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Don Firth Date: 15 Jul 03 - 01:45 PM What I quoted is from a couple of political science texts that I have. Puns are possible in Italian, too. The main defining characteristic of fascism is the unity of corporation and state and the policies it leads to. To be fair to the members of the Bush administration, I doubt very seriously that any of them consider themselves to be fascists, or even treading close to fascism. Nevertheless, in the grand scheme of things, it isn't what one considers oneself to be that defines one's political position, it's what one's policies are and what one does. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: GUEST,heric Date: 15 Jul 03 - 02:55 PM You guys had me all scared and now I see that the Project for the New etc is a Dan Quayle production. http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Janie Date: 15 Jul 03 - 03:29 PM This is not really thread creep, I don't think. We are in for more than a quagmire. Seems the bottom line is our president is a cowboy. If his political philosophy was different, he would still be a screw-up. Unfortunately, the rest of the country (and the world) are going to get screwed too. Ex-defence sec. says USA losing control of N.Korean crisis |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Janie Date: 15 Jul 03 - 03:30 PM Hurray--I finally made a working blue clicky (I hope) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: GUEST,Jaze Date: 15 Jul 03 - 07:02 PM It's pretty ironic isn't it, how outraged people in this country were when one president lied about a blowjob! Yet lying about the reasons for going to war, taking over another country, and snubbing the UN and rest of the world doesn't seem to cause half the uproar. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Jul 03 - 07:44 PM When I say "fascist isn't accurate", I'm not saying it's excessive, because these guys aren't really all that bad; I'm just saying that they are coming from a different direction. But it's true enough that all the different movements and regimes that commonly get called fascist had a lot of differences, and not that much in common, other than a nationalist stance, a disregard for legal niceties, an appetite for power, and a willingness to be extremely violent in holding on to and extending it. So maybe it's not such an inaccurate word at that. I note that the papers here are saying that efforts by the UK Government to get British citizens held in Guantanamo Bay sent back here for trial have run into the sand - the sticking point being that the US authorities believe (probably rightly) that in a British court there would be no realistic chance of them being found guilty. So instead they are facing a possible death sentence in a US Military Tribunal. Now that is very reminiscent indeed of the way justice works in fascist regimes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: NicoleC Date: 15 Jul 03 - 08:05 PM Especially since Guantanamo Bay -- being outside the US -- is also outside of the jurisdiction of any US court. Which neatly circumvents that nasty little balance of power inconvenience and rights of judicial review. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Bobert Date: 15 Jul 03 - 08:47 PM GUEST, Jaze, Ifr the progressive side of the equation was funded by big money, then Clinton's situation wouldn't have made Page A-8 of any newspaper and Bush would be fighting an impeachment as we speak... The reality is that Bush represents big, big money and has even more PAC's that meet weekly to discuss just how to stay in power. Thewy did thids during the Clinton years as well. These folks would make a "dirty trickster" like Lee Atwell look like a Boy Scout. These a re some purdy danged ruthless, greedy people who hate anything that that might be construed as the working class getting any greater share of the wealth. They hate Social Security. They hate Medicare, Medicaid, Aid to Families with Dependent Children. All they want is, ahhhhh, .... it all for their own greddy selves and friends. And they own the media which manipulates public opinion as craftilly as a surgeon. They know how to show their guys screw ups so that it will ahve the least negative effect. They know how, when things are getting a little out of hand, to create diversions. These folks are practically unbeatable and when you do beat them thay have lots and lots of lawyers to screw with you. Like intervening in the vote brokering between the Gore and Nadar camps. And they paid hired goon squads to be in Florida just hours after the polls closed to intimidate poll workers. And we all know the rest... So that is the enemy. It's their game and if yer gonna change it, yer gonna have to start by changing the thinking of just one person, and then another. Yes, it will take a "revolution" to take back America. But it can be done. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Don Firth Date: 15 Jul 03 - 09:44 PM Just heard a statistic this morning. Maintaining our forces in Iraq is costing one billion dollars a week. [To our British friends, that's one thousand million.] At the same time, many domestic programs such as Head Start are being cut, and funding for a whole variety of programs promised in various campaign speeches, press conferences, and in the State of the Union speech are not forthcoming. The reason, we are told, is that there are insufficient funds. And regarding one of my points above, read this and think about it. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Janie Date: 15 Jul 03 - 10:18 PM So, what do each of us as individuals do to try to stop our collective values from being marginalized? There is definitely a national emergency here, and the threat is not from terrorists or from overseas. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Deckman Date: 15 Jul 03 - 10:39 PM For the FIRST time since President bush (I refuse to capitalize his name) started HID war, I am slightly encouraged. Tonight on nationwide TV, some soldiers in Iraq were shown, on camera, expressing their frustrations and confusion. Their unit has been held over for the third time. Wait 'till the voting parents, and the local politicians back home get hold of this. And, can you begin to imagine just how much grief is going to come on those soldiers, for having the courage to speak their minds. Perhaps there should be a special medal for bravery awarded them. Bob |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Bobert Date: 15 Jul 03 - 11:05 PM Yeah, Deckman, I hear you but I'm thinkin' why would the Republican owned media want to air this negative stuff now, instead of later? Hmmmm? Well, they are gonna get as much of ther bagage off Bush now so they can build him up in time for the '04 elections. Timing is everything and now is the time to *flush* the crap so they can get on in getting Bush re-appointed/selected 'er whatever they want to call it... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: GUEST,pdc Date: 16 Jul 03 - 12:01 AM Bobert posted: And they own the media which manipulates public opinion as craftily as a surgeon. They know how to show their guys screw ups so that it will have the least negative effect. They know how, when things are getting a little out of hand, to create diversions. I agree with you totally -- but consider the good news! Even though they own the media, Bush is still dropping in the polls, more and more people are complaining, more and more of his (and their) machinations are coming to light. They may control the media, but they can't seem to control themselves, and this is having an effect. You also said: These folks are practically unbeatable and when you do beat them they have lots and lots of lawyers to screw with you. Like intervening in the vote brokering between the Gore and Nader camps. And they paid hired goon squads to be in Florida just hours after the polls closed to intimidate poll workers. And we all know the rest... This is more worrisome. But given what happened in Florida last election, there are bound to be more watchdogs on the next election, and they would have to be much more blatant to carry anything off. They had the advantage of surprise and novelty the first time -- this time their tricks will be expected. The main thing that worries me is the computerized voting machines you have. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Don Firth Date: 16 Jul 03 - 01:58 PM I didn't see the same TV coverage that Bob (Deckman) did, but here's a story from today's paper that seems to cover the same matter (TWING!!). And here's another article that may belong in another thread, but I find it interesting as well (TWANG!!). Last night, having fried my eyes by sitting in front of my computer monitor all day, I naturally turned on the television set. Nothing but summer re-runs. The most likely candidate for watching was a re-run of an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, but I had already seen that episode at least eight times, and it wasn't one of my favorites anyway. So I channel-surfed. When I hit CSPAN-2, John Kerry was speaking, so I watched. It turned out that it was a presentation for a large audience made up of gay/lesbian groups and individuals who were there to hear what the Democratic presidential candidates had to say about the civil rights of gays and lesbians re: civil domestic partnerships, same sex marriage, place in the military, etc., along with a number of other issues. I came in late, so, at the time, I didn't know who all it included, but I did hear John Kerry, Dennis Kucinich, Carol Mosley-Braun, Howard Dean, Joe Lieberman, Al Sharpton, and Dick Gephardt. Each candidate had a two minute opening statement. Then Sam Donaldson plied them with questions about a number of issues. Then each one made a two minute closing statement. Here is the New York Times story about the forum (PLINK!!). Being a flaming, out-of-the-closet heterosexual, the subject under discussion was not an issue for me personally, but it is for a number of friends and acquaintances, and it is a civil rights issue, so I was interested in what they all had to say. Also, it was an opportunity to hear at least seven of the nine all in a row and make some comparisons. I have no particular ax to grind here (other than getting the Bush administration the hell out of there!), and what I am really looking for now is a candidate that I can support whole-heartedly and who will even get me enthusiastic enough to get up off my butt and go to work for. Impressions:— The candidates I found the most interesting were Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton. Next in line was John Kerry. These three had real "fire in the belly." Their remarks were solid, clear, and unequivocal. No waffling here. And all three were very dynamic speakers, particularly Kucinich and Sharpton. I have heard that some people, including Democrats, regard these two as something of a joke, with no chance of ever winning, but to my mind, they were the ones who offered the most clear-cut, least ambiguous ideas and intentions, and who also offered an unmistakable alternative to the current administration. Kerry was very good also. Pretty much up there with the other two. So far, that would be my short list: Kucinich, Sharpton, and Kerry. Carol Mosley Braun was impressive, as was Dick Gephardt. Regarding Howard Dean, having heard him before and learning something about his background, he was the one I preferred as the Democratic candidate (and I may still, depending), but after last night, I'm back to pondering again. He was very good, but he was not as clear-cut and dynamic as those on my "short list." If Joe Lieberman turns out to be the Democratic candidate after the convention, I will work for him and vote for him in preference to letting the current administration stay in, but only with reservations. He said some good things, but I was not as impressed by him as I was with the others. Two WOWs!! When Sam Donaldson asked Kucinich if he would appoint an openly gay or lesbian person to the Supreme Court, he responded, "Certainly! Provided they support Roe v. Wade!" (Audience explodes in cheers and applause). Al Sharpton, while talking about political activism and participation in civil rights marches and peace marches, said, "Anyone who has reached the age of fifty and has not been thrown in jail for supporting an important cause has no reason to brag!" (Another powerful audience response). I, personally, am not endorsing anyone at this point. I'm still watching, reading, and thinking, and I will continue to do so for many months to come. But after seeing these Democratic candidates in this forum, believe me, any reports that the Democratic Party is dead or no longer relevant is just wishful thinking on the part of the Republican Party. Hang in there, people! It ain't over 'til it's over! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: GUEST Date: 18 Jul 03 - 11:45 AM Bet you can convince some of your supporters that your dead horse is actually doing some wonderful tricks! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Don Firth Date: 18 Jul 03 - 02:20 PM GUEST, you're post is a bit enigmatic, but if by "dead horse" you are referring to the Democratic Party, my answer to that is that there is nothing Bush and his Merry Men would like better than to have any opposition automatically assume that that it's hopeless, thereby making only a half-hearted effort. Despite what the polls you read might say (and just who conducts these polls, anyway?), there are plenty of people in this country who are pretty steamed, and they're not about to roll over an play dead. It ain't gonna work, my friend, it ain't gonna work! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Deckman Date: 18 Jul 03 - 04:13 PM Actually ... supporting a dead horse is a bit tricky! But it's not nearly as tricky as trying to continue this charade happening in Iraq. Bob |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: GUEST Date: 18 Jul 03 - 05:30 PM Mr. Firth: Enigmatic statement was meant in a much more general way. Thanks for response, more than some offer, my friend. (PS: just keeping 'ya honest!). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Janie Date: 28 Jul 03 - 03:07 PM This past Sunday I finally got up my nerve to stand in church and speak out about the arrogant, harmful course the Bush administration is following both at home and abroad. After the services a number of people came to me and WHISPERED their support and agreement. This is a socially liberal Episcopalian congregation. And they are so afraid to express their opposition views publicly, that they whispered?!!! Looks like there is an awful lot of work to be done to get the American electorate mobilized. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Bobert Date: 28 Jul 03 - 05:26 PM GUEST,pdc: There is a bill in the House for "paper ballots". I don't have the HR number but I heard about it on WPFW today... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 28 Jul 03 - 05:57 PM Scientists say 'nay' to computerized voting Group assails machines as 'inherently subject to programming error' But that's the very reason, both in the UK and the USA, the people in power are rushing to get away from paper ballots. Too bad your Founding Fathers didn't stick in an amendment in your Constitution providing for the right to use a pencil when voting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Don Firth Date: 28 Jul 03 - 06:05 PM Yes, Janey, and therein lies one of our problems. The Bush administration may talk in future months about getting out the vote, as all political parties do, but in actuality, they count strongly on continued voter apathy. A good, fairly brief article HERE is well worth reading. Among other things, it explains a good chunk of the Bush administration's overall policies, both foreign and domestic. Someone once said, "Sometimes the best way to understand what appears to be a folly is to ask what it accomplishes." For example, why tax cuts when we're heading into a recession and the government is about to go to war? "Trickle-down economics" has nothing to do with it. In institutionalizing the "war on terrorism" the Bush administration acquired a rationale for expanding its powers and furthering its domestic agenda. While the nation's resources are directed toward endless war, the White House promoted tax cuts in the midst of recession, leaving scant resources available for domestic programs. The effect is to render the citizenry more dependent on government, and to empty the cash-box in case a reformist administration comes to power.But why would they want to do that? Well explained in another fairly short article HERE. I think these articles are not only enlightening, but they contain a lot of good talking points. Anthropologist Margaret Mead said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." That's what keeps me going. Keep pluggin' away. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Don Firth Date: 28 Jul 03 - 06:29 PM Quagmire? 'Nuff said!! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Janie Date: 28 Jul 03 - 06:29 PM Thanks Don. Both links are very useful. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Teribus Date: 29 Jul 03 - 03:19 AM Don Firth - 28 Jul 03 - 06:29 PM Thanks for the link Don - pity in the comparison links offered they don't do one for US Defence spending - because without that you do not know what the "War in Iraq", or the "War on Terror" is actually costing you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar Date: 29 Jul 03 - 07:48 AM The Carlo d'Este biography of Patton portrays Eisenhower as a bit of a duffer. But the more I learn of his post-WW II warnings against the military-industrial complex (see Don's "'Nuff said" blickie), the more respect I have for him. The fact that he was a Republican and a soldier makes his warnings all the more credible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Teribus Date: 30 Jul 03 - 05:35 AM I just looked up what the US spends on defence. Don's link says that shows the cost of the war in Iraq and currently is just under US$ 72,000,000,000. US defence spending 2000 was around US$400,000,000,000. so if you open Don's link and watch as the number increases, note the rate of increase. Then try to imagine what that would look like at five and a half times the speed - that is what was being spent in 2000, when there was no war in Iraq and no war on terror. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: GUEST,cittern Date: 30 Jul 03 - 06:17 AM Well, The Project For The New American Century has been pushing for increased defence spending for some time. I last visited their website a few days ago to see if they had anything to say about "Quagmire Iraq". I noticed that their focus now seems to be on China (including references to China's links to Saddam's regime and current links to other "rogue states"). Perhaps the Middle East is only the start ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Bobert Date: 30 Jul 03 - 04:37 PM Very good point, T. When you throw in the all the money thats flows thru the Defense Department, it is quite staggering. Especially for a country that has enough "paid for" weapons to easilly defend itself... But that wouldn't keep the military industrial complex merrily rolling along while the average worker works mighty hard to pay the taxes that go to the DOD... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Don Firth Date: 13 Aug 03 - 02:30 PM On CSPAN last night, I heard Rep. Jim McDermott, the Congressional Representative from my district, speaking to the Veterans for Peace meeting in San Francisco. After his remarks, there were several questions from the audience. One had to do with the actual number of casualties in the Iraq war, and the daily drumbeat of reports of "one soldier killed and three injured" and "two soldiers killed and eight injured in rocket propelled grenade attack" and on and on, almost every day. What, the questioner wanted to know, had become of the "injured?" How bad were their injuries? How many recovered? How many died a few hours or days later? "You never hear about that," he said. "What is the real number of casualties?" McDermott answered that the Department of Defense does not make those figures available to the news media. This, he said, is a lesson they learned from the Vietnam war. When people back home knew the actual number and nature of the casualties, it added substantial impetus to the anti-war movement. The Bush Administration is not about to let that happen this time. The following is an excerpt from an article by Sam Goff, author of Hideous Dream: A Soldier's Memoir of the US Invasion of Haiti and of a forthcoming book, Full Spectrum Disorder. There are no longer any American troops being wounded in Iraq.It seems that those who are the most adamant about making sure there are wars in our country's future have never actually fought in a war themselves. Or even bothered to show up for their National Guard meetings. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Bobert Date: 13 Aug 03 - 09:22 PM And how about the number of Iraqi casualties, Don?\ 30,000 bombs of which 80% were supposed to be "smart" (oximoron going on there), milions of rounds of tank, artillery and small arm weponery fired in the direction of Iraqia and according to Teribus, between 1400 and possibly 5000 Iraqis. What a crock of manure. Now we learn that a modern day napalm was also dropped on Iraqis. Someone don't want anyone knowing about casualties, American or Iraqi!!! Hmmmmm? Could it be the same someone who lied thru his teeth to lather up Amercians to attack a country with a 3rd rate army? Nah? I mean like how could that be? The current silence of those who were doing the biggest huffin' and puffin' here in this joint prior to war, speaks volumes about the validity for attacking and now occupying Iraq. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Teribus Date: 14 Aug 03 - 04:39 AM Boberts shock and horror - "Now we learn that a modern day napalm was also dropped on Iraqis." Report on use of Napalm, Mk 77 Firebomb, call it what you will: "American pilots dropped the controversial incendiary agent napalm on Iraqi troops during the advance on Baghdad. The attacks caused massive fireballs that obliterated several Iraqi positions. The Pentagon denied using napalm at the time, but Marine pilots and their commanders have confirmed that they used an upgraded version of the weapon against dug-in positions. They said napalm, which has a distinctive smell, was used because of its psychological effect on an enemy. A 1980 UN convention banned the use against civilian targets of napalm,..... The US, which did not sign the treaty, is one of the few countries that makes use of the weapon. The upgraded weapon, which uses kerosene rather than petrol, was used in March and April, when dozens of napalm bombs were dropped near bridges over the Saddam Canal and the Tigris river, south of Baghdad. "We napalmed both those [bridge] approaches," said Colonel James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11. "Unfortunately there were people there ... you could see them in the [cockpit] video. They were Iraqi soldiers." From the above, and from other articles on this subject, we get the following: The targets were clearly identified military targets, therefore "legitimate" under the terms of the UN convention mentioned above. The use was minimal, "dozens" not thousands, not millions. The use was selective and restricted in application. From other articles the press present reported that the weapon was used last, i.e. after positions had been hit with artillery, bombs or missiles. Use was mainly for, "its psychological effect on an enemy" - by and large that seems to have worked, the Iraqi forces made no attempt to manouevre, or stand and fight. The US did not sign up to the 1980 UN convention so they are perfectly entitled to use these types of munitions, and it should be noted that the UN convention only bans its use against civilian targets - It dosen't ban its use period. As you have brought the subject up Bobert: How about the number of Iraqi casualties? - Have you bothered to go the sites I mentioned when I originally challenged your totally arbitrary and fictitious figure? - No didn't think you had. 30,000 bombs of which 80% smart. - Targeted at what? When were the bulk of them fired, day or night? "..., milions of rounds of tank, artillery and small arm weponery fired in the direction of Iraqia.." - Where the hell is Iraqia? "...and according to Teribus, between 1400 and possibly 5000 Iraqis." No Bobert, not according to me, according to world press reports and an extremely anti-war web site. The upper range figure that particular site gave was in actual fact closer to 6000, but then you never have been all that great at posting factually or accurately Bobert. Quagmire Iraq? Last report I can remember hearing was something in the order of 58 US personnel killed in Iraq since 1st May this year, a period of three and a half months, 106 days. Area of incidence is very localised to areas known to be loyal to Saddam Hussein - his own tribal area. That is in a country the size of France, beginning of this week the French reported 50 people dead from heat-stroke, over a period of four days, in and around their capital. No intention of drawing parallels but it does put some sort of perspective on the numbers and time-frame. So quagmire Iraq? - Hardly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Bobert Date: 14 Aug 03 - 08:09 AM Now, the the old Teribus that I know! Good to have you back, kickin' and scremin' and pickin' on my bad spellin'... But when I say Iraqis, I mean, ahhhh, Iraqis, which to me includes troops. Do any of your links address those numbers, too, or are they focusing strictly on what they may define as civilian losses? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Bobert Date: 14 Aug 03 - 08:12 AM And, BTW, T-Bird, do you have any links on the number of deaths of Americans, as Don pointed out, die of their wounds days after they are wounded? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: GUEST,CrazyEddie Date: 14 Aug 03 - 08:52 AM As Don Frith Said ..."There are no longer any American troops being wounded in Iraq. Now they are "injured." Listen closely to the news and you will be hard pressed to hear the word "wounded." "Wounded" conjures up a different image than "injured,"... So they gathered the crippled, the wounded, and maimed, And they shipped us back home to Australia. The legless, the armless, the blind and insane, Those proud wounded heroes of Suvla. And when our ship pulled into Circular Quay I looked at the place where me legs used to be And thanked Christ there was nobody waiting for me To grieve, and to mourn and to pity. And the Band played Waltzing Matilda As they carried us down the gangway, But nobody cheered, they just stood there and stared, Then they turned all their faces away. Same shit, different day! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Amos Date: 14 Aug 03 - 09:08 AM The US did not sign up to the 1980 UN convention so they are perfectly entitled to use these types of munitions I am not sure anyone should even think the thought of being "perfectly entitled" to drop burning napalm on another human. Perfectly entitled? My Gawd, what a villainous proposition. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: GUEST Date: 14 Aug 03 - 08:02 PM For that matter, I suppose a nation that declines to sign the non-proliferation treaty is "perfectly entitled" to develop all the nuclear weapons it wants. Teribus, someone with your military competence shouldn't be shooting himself in the foot. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: sledge Date: 15 Aug 03 - 03:06 AM Just a few thoughts on some of the posts mentioned above, Bush hypocisy again, US declining to sign an agreement is accetptable, Iraq doing so is bad and good enough reason to invade. Only 58 dead in three months, such a nice low number, thats only 58 families with an emptty space that can never be filled again, ever. Not counting the severley injured and those who later died of their wounds. Size Iraq = size France, so what. Large parts of Iraq are desert, incapable of supporting large populations, France, green and lush easily capable of supporting a large population, as a comparison, its a waste of time. Sledge |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: DMcG Date: 15 Aug 03 - 03:28 AM On the UK news last night, it said "1 killed, 2 injured" and then was immediately followed by the military spokesman saying the injuries were not life-threatening but were severe. I doubt if I would have noticed if the topic of injured/wounded and life-threatening versus minor injury had not cropped up in this thread. Thanks for keeping me a little more alert. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Teribus Date: 15 Aug 03 - 03:40 AM GUEST 14 Aug 03 - 08:02 PM "I suppose a nation that declines to sign the non-proliferation treaty is "perfectly entitled" to develop all the nuclear weapons it wants." - That's right Guest, basically they are, but that "nation" mentioned in your statement must do it entirely on its own, as those nations who have signed up to the NPT are not permitted to provide assistance. Bobert, one of the web sites I previously referred you to gives total casualty figures - killed and wounded for US forces, UK forces, Australian forces, Iraqi forces, Iraqi civilians and those classified as "others", i.e. those killed and wounded from countries not included in the other classifications. With regard to those originally reported as being wounded who later die from wounds received, for that information I would rely on press reports, as I do not know the update procedures and frequency for the individual web sites. Amos, I certainly do not "think" there are any "nice" ways to die in a war. The fact still remains blatantly obvious that if you have not signed up to an agreement/contract/convention/treaty, there can be no way that you are bound by its terms or conditions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Teribus Date: 15 Aug 03 - 06:35 AM sledge - 15 Aug 03 - 03:06 AM Bush hypocisy?? What on earth are you talking about?? The "US declining to sign an agreement is accetptable" - Of course its acceptable, that is the exercise of free choice, or do you subscribe to the belief that everyone should sign up to everything and accept terms and conditions irrespective of the fact that you believe, or know, them to be impractical and against your own interests? "Iraq doing so is bad and good enough reason to invade" - Come along!! It had nothing to do with Iraq declining to sign an agreement. It was about Iraq having signed and agreed to comply with the conditions stated in a number of UN Security Council Resolutions, then completely failing to honour its obligations to the international community - that's what brought about the invasion. The number of dead reported, at least in UK news bulletins, does include those who later die of their wounds. To paraphrase a typical example of how this is done: "Iraq, US Forces came under attack today in the town of Al-Hilla, there were no casualties reported. One of the American soldiers injured during an attack in Falluja two days ago has since died of his wounds, bringing the total number of dead since 1st May, to XX." I did actually say that I was not making a comparison between France and Iraq. The title of the thread was the point being compared, in a relatively small part of Iraq 58 people have died as a result of attacks over a period of 106 days, in a relatively small part of France 50 people have died as a result of the recent heat wave over a period of four days, reported this morning on BBC news the total number of deaths in France attributed to the effects of the weather over the last two months is around 3000. Now in terms of lives lost and empty seats at tables, etc - which situation is worse? The counter-point, that one situation was avoidable and the other wasn't, doesn't work - both were avoidable, in Iraq Saddam Hussein could have complied fully with the UNSC Resolutions he agreed to from the outset in 1991 (he chose not to), in France, according to the medical profession there, successive governments should have invested more in their health-care schemes and infrastructure. With regard to civilian casualties, some put these down entirely to the actions of the US/UK forces, not one word about Saddam's deliberate tactic of nesting his forces in the middle of his civilian population. That is in direct contravention of the Geneva Convention, but predictable, Saddam had used "Human Shields" before, as I've said, not one word of condemnation raised regarding that in this forum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 15 Aug 03 - 06:55 AM So even if Iraq had possessed WMD, that would have been OK so long as Iraq had not signed the treaty? In which case the war was merely about regime change - which was not OK, because those in the "coalition of the willing" (he-he) had all promised, as signatories of the UN Charter, not to go round doing that sort of thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Teribus Date: 15 Aug 03 - 07:38 AM Fionn - 15 Aug 03 - 06:55 AM Point 1. "So even if Iraq had possessed WMD, that would have been OK so long as Iraq had not signed the treaty?" Nope - In 1990 Iraq invaded and occupied Kuwait. A UN coalition led by the USA fulfilled the terms of it's UN mandate to expell Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The ceasefire agreement signed to end hostilities, among other things, required Iraq's disarmament with regard to WMD and further required that Iraq dismantle its production facilities and research and development programmes. Among other things, Iraq failed to comply with those stipulations. Point 2. "In which case the war was merely about regime change - which was not OK, because those in the "coalition of the willing" (he-he) had all promised, as signatories of the UN Charter, not to go round doing that sort of thing." Nope - Having been offered one last chance to honour its obligations to the international community, Iraq accepted the terms and conditions outlined in UNSC Resolution 1441. Warned of serious consequences resulting from any material breach of that resolution, Saddam Hussein, for reasons best known to himself, decided that Iraq would not fully comply. The United States of America and the United Kingdom held the belief that the situation left unchecked constituted a threat to themselves (indirectly) and to the interests of the region (directly). Iraq was in breach of the terms of the cease-fire signed at Saffwan in 1991. The major obstacles to the disarmament of Iraq were Saddam Hussein himself and the ruling Ba'ath Party in Iraq, therefore regime change was considered desireable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Don Firth Date: 15 Aug 03 - 02:53 PM "With regard to those originally reported as being wounded who later die from wounds received, for that information I would rely on press reports. . . ." That's the point, Teribus. The press doesn't report this. We are not told what the real casualties are. A couple of news reports I did see left me with indelible images of this war. While watching the news one evening (CBC, delivered by cable, not any of the American news services) they did a story on Iraqi civilian casualties. There was a brief film-clip of an Iraqi boy, about eight years old, laying in a hospital bed. The stumps where his arms had been were covered with bloody bandages, and the narrator mentioned that he had also lost a leg. His dark eyes were open, unblinking, and haunted. Sitting beside the bed was his mother, a fairly young woman wearing a burkha, but no veil. As she gazed off into space, her eyes bore the same haunted look. It was easy to assume that they both might have been wondering about how the boy was going to live for the rest of his life with only one leg and no arms. And wondering "Why?" The boy, and a couple of his friends, had been kicking a soccer ball around in a school yard on what seemed like a fairly calm afternoon, when a "smart bomb" exploded a few yards away from them. In the school yard. He was the lucky one. His friends had been killed. On another news report, again not coming from a U. S. news service, a brief film clip showed a bridge American troops had just captured. In the background there were three bodies. I couldn't tell whether they were American or Iraqi, but from the gear they were wearing (camouflage, the helmets), it looked like they were American. One lay on his back with his arms and legs splayed out and bent in unnatural ways. Another looked like he was at attention; his legs straight were straight and his arms were at his sides, but his head was turned to one side. He was laying on his stomach. The third was further off in the distance and a bit off-camera. They looked like rag dolls that some petulant child had tossed there. These were a couple of brief peeks at what really happens during a war. But these stories were broadcast while the major portion of the fighting was going on. The CBC doesn't show anything like this anymore, and the U. S. news services never showed anything like this at all. Except, of course, for Saddam's two sons. But in the meantime, the beat goes one. Every day or two:— Humvee attacked with rocket propelled grenades, two dead, three "injured." Troops guarding building attacked with automatic weapons fire, one dead, six "injured." And so one. For how long, one wonders? Contemplated the kind of "injuries" an exploding rocket propelled grenade might inflict. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 16 Aug 03 - 04:56 PM Teribus, anyone reading your last post at face value might wonder why you even bother to drag in a justification for "desirable" regime change, given that it's a weak justification, and in any case, as I said in my preceding post, the "coalition" members were signed up to eschew regime change as a basis for war. But take away regime change and you're left depending on 1441. And I can see you might feel a twinge of uncertainty on that score. No wonder. In a desperate pitch to get waverers on board, and speaking speaking with the full authority of the US government, John Negroponte on November 8 last year assured the UNSC that 1441 contained "no hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to war. It was in the light of that clarification that member states adopted 1441. Therefore it is disingenous retrospectively to accord 1441 the status of a war ultimatum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Amos Date: 16 Aug 03 - 05:09 PM BUSH'S STATEMENTS CONTRADICTED BY FACTS Read on to see how the Post's August 10 report picks apart Bush's claims that Iraq's nuclear program presented an imminent threat to the United States. BUSH'S STATEMENT: "A report came out of the . . . [International Atomic Energy Agency], that [the Iraqis] were six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need." Camp David, 9/7/02 THE WASHINGTON POST SAYS... "There was no new IAEA report... Bush cast as present evidence the contents of a report from 1996, updated in 1998 and 1999. In those accounts, the IAEA described the history of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program that arms inspectors had systematically destroyed." BUSH'S STATEMENT: "Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon." United Nations, 9/12/02 THE WASHINGTON POST SAYS... "Gas centrifuge experts consulted by the U.S. government said repeatedly for more than a year that the aluminum tubes were not suitable or intended for uranium enrichment. By December 2002, the experts said new evidence had further undermined the government's assertion. The Bush administration portrayed the scientists as a minority and emphasized that the experts did not describe the centrifuge theory as impossible." BUSH'S STATEMENT: "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." Cincinnati OH, 10/7/02 THE WASHINGTON POST SAYS... "What Hussein did not have was the principal requirement for a nuclear weapon, a sufficient quantity of highly enriched uranium or plutonium. And the U.S. government, authoritative intelligence officials said, had only circumstantial evidence that Iraq was trying to obtain those materials." BUSH'S STATEMENT: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group of his 'nuclear mujahedeen,' his nuclear holy warriors." Cincinnati OH, 10/7/02 THE WASHINGTON POST SAYS... "Bush and others often alleged that President Hussein held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, but did not disclose that the known work of the scientists was largely benign. Iraq's three top gas centrifuge experts, for example, ran a copper factory, an operation to extract graphite from oil and a mechanical engineering design center." Click the link below to read the full, devastating Washington Post report, which shows exactly how and when President Bush misled America to push the nation into a unilateral war with Iraq. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39500-2003Aug9.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Bobert Date: 16 Aug 03 - 07:56 PM There you go again, Amos. So the guy lied a little. Hey, Clinton lied about having sex with Monika, didn't he. Okay, maybe a hundred thousand Iraqis died, or the 1400 to 6000 that T says, as a result of Bush's lies. Details. There's planty of Iraqis left, ain't there? Geeze, I don't understand the big fuss... Hey, we got their oil, didn't we? Plus, they did it to protect us from Osoma, didn' they? How many times is Teribus going to have to explain this to you, Amos? Amos? *Amos*? Yo, Amos.... Now pay attention, dangit! T is going to quiz us on this material... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Greg F. Date: 17 Aug 03 - 09:58 AM Worth reading- *** In Iraq, U.S. ignores lessons of Vietnam War [excerpts] By JAMES L. LAROCCA ... Our government called it "pacification." We called it madness. It all has come back to me while watching the news from Iraq, where we should be applying more of the lessons so painfully learned in Vietnam. Instead, we seem to be repeating our mistakes. ... President Bush, who spent almost all of his military service out of uniform and involved in political campaigns in the South, and Vice President Dick Cheney, who never served at all (he had, in his words, "other priorities"), would do well to consider the lessons of Vietnam. We did not win the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese people because we occupied their country while we burned down their homes and killed them and brutalized and abused them. We will not win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people by wrecking their towns and cities, destroying their homes, terrorizing their families and humiliating their men. Incredibly, we have again become an occupying army, out of touch with the realities of the lives and culture of the people we are there to save. Not surprisingly, the Iraqi people are striking back.... Full article HERE |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: TIA Date: 18 Aug 03 - 08:43 AM Thank you for that link Greg F. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: GUEST Date: 18 Aug 03 - 08:31 PM As Art Linkletter once noted, "children say the darndest things". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Amos Date: 18 Aug 03 - 08:43 PM While I don't even pretend to understand the nonsequitur remark of 0831, I think thae linked essay is compelling and should be paid attention to byh the Bush-in-Residency-by-Selection. IF he can read it, that is. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: GUEST Date: 18 Aug 03 - 08:49 PM Your dolt lost. Got it. Now grow up and move on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Amos Date: 18 Aug 03 - 10:15 PM Yes,ma'a'm, thank you ma'a'm. Perch and rotate, ma'a'm. Was that supercilious wiseass remark supposed to contribute something? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Teribus Date: 19 Aug 03 - 09:05 AM Fionn - 16 Aug 03 - 04:56 PM " you're left depending on 1441. And I can see you might feel a twinge of uncertainty on that score." Not in the slightest. In 1441 the Iraqi Regime under Saddam Hussein were given one last chance to comply fully with the cease-fire terms signed and agreed by themselves in 1991. They failed to do this, therefore the terms of that cease-fire agreement were broken. The invasion of Kuwait; Desert Shield; Desert Storm; Desert Fox and the invasion of Iraq are all interconnected, they cannot be treated in isolation. The timescale of 12 years was due entirely to the apathy and lack of resolve on the part of the United Nations - nothing else. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 19 Aug 03 - 09:48 AM Not the apathy of successive US governments then Teribus? Perhaps you've forgotten that even the Shrub himself ignored "go get the oil" advice from Perle & Co, until the hysterical over-reaction to 9-11 opened a window of opportunity. On what basis do you describe the UN inaction as "lack of resolve," when you might equally have called it "good judgment"? Contrary to your blinkered hindsight, war against Iraq was on no-one's agenda in the 1990s, except possibly yours. As far as 1441 goes, I really don't know why you cling to it, given that the US made plain, and those who voted on it accepted, that it was not a war ultimatum; and in any case you seem to think that the US had some convoluted legal basis for going it alone. Regardless of which, the fact remains that michaelr was spot on with his title for this thread. Iraq is a quagmire, and that it would become one was very widely predicted/i>. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: GUEST Date: 19 Aug 03 - 11:04 AM Anus says the same old crap day after day after day! Blah! Blah! Blah! Get a real life! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Amos Date: 19 Aug 03 - 11:22 AM Real as in what--nameless, mindless, hypercritical? No, thanks. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: GUEST Date: 19 Aug 03 - 11:27 AM Same old playbook. Lying and name calling. Anus, you should shut up one day a week. Try Tuesdays. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Don Firth Date: 19 Aug 03 - 01:20 PM Don't you just admire the hell out of someone who makes snotty remarks and calls people degrading names while they hide behind anonymity? Such intellect! Such courage! Time to call the Orkin man. We seem to have vermin about the place. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: GUEST Date: 19 Aug 03 - 02:12 PM BAN ALL GUESTS!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Don Firth Date: 19 Aug 03 - 08:41 PM No, just you. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Amos Date: 19 Aug 03 - 09:00 PM Tell you what, pixie-dust -- get a name, send me a PM, and I will be very interested to hear what your complaint is, if you care to tell me. I know it isn't what you are saying it is so far. If you won't do at least that much, then I'd rather you hold your tongue altogether. A |
|
Subject: Orwell lives From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar Date: 05 Sep 03 - 11:36 AM Received by e-mail from a colleague: "When the White House published the text of and photos from Bush's speech announcing the supposed end of the Iraq attack, the headline read: "President Bush Announces Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended." But on Tuesday, 19 Aug 2003, the Cursor website noticed that the headline had been changed to read: "President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended." The word "major" had been added. Apparently, with the quagmire resulting in at least one dead US soldier a day--not to mention even more injuries, dead Iraqis, and sabotage--that headline had proved incorrect. Therefore, straight out of 1984, the headline was stealthily altered to make it seem as if that's what it had always said. We were able to recover numerous instances of the unaltered headline. At the top of the page is the original headline, as it has been preserved on the Website of Scott Long, who collects photos of politicians on aircraft carriers. Under that, you'll find the headline as it is now." It occurred to me recently that we have napalm only it's not called napalm any more, and any day soon we'll have escalation only they won't call it escalation any more. That very evening I switched on CNN Europe (that's the real commie fellow-traveller version) and what was the headline? Escalation. I hope that the rest of the world will tell the shrub to take a flying f*** at himself with his sudden conversion to internationalisation (i.e. keep on running the show, but get other nationalities to supply their troops as walking targets in place of more valuable Americans), but if I were an American of draft age or a parent of kids in that age group I'd be worried. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: GUEST,pdq Date: 05 Sep 03 - 02:16 PM The U.S. has not had a draft for thirty years. The young men and women we send to Iraq know what they are doing and why. Also, if the UN could have cleaned up the mess in Iraq they would have in the 13 years they had to do it. The U.S. did all the hard work and payed a large price in money and human life. We will finish the job with or without the worthless den of thieves in the UN building. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: ard mhacha Date: 05 Sep 03 - 03:13 PM God help your wit Guest, but you will never in your lifetime see a stable Iraq. The US are so deep in the mire that they are now begging for UN help. France and Germany along with the Moslem nations should continue to refuse the use of their Forces, until the US clear out and leave the UN alone to try and recover the chaos left behind by a parcel of war-mongering fools. Ard Mhacha. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: michaelr Date: 05 Sep 03 - 03:27 PM The number of American soldiers killed since "the end of major combat operations" has now exceeded the number killed during the invasion. Guest pdq, a large number ouf our troops in Iraq are National Guard and Army reservists. They had no idea what they were in for when they got shipped out, and they were lied to about how long they would have to stay. Cheers, Michael |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: GUEST,pdq Date: 05 Sep 03 - 03:32 PM The U.S. is not begging anyone for help. We are trying to get the rest of the civilized world involved. Saddam was responsible for as many as 1000 deaths per week. Even the most optimistic here in the U.S. expect about five years, minimum, to develope a stabile government in Iraq. As we yanks say "either help or get out of the way". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: GUEST,pdq Date: 05 Sep 03 - 03:40 PM You are right, michaelr. I spent the early 1970's in the National Guard and I never expected to go anywhere except Camp Roberts! The statement was aimed at the ignorant who think we still have conscription. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Barry Finn Date: 05 Sep 03 - 03:51 PM We don't need no stinking UN before or now or EVER. We don't need no stinking Constitution or Bill of Rights or civil liberties any more freedoms than we already got, we don't need to be part of no stinking Human Rights Commission or World Court of Law. We don't even need follow the stupid Geneva Conventions anymore. Elections, bah, we don't need them either. We don't need no Kenneth Lay or his Enron Corporation & we don't need his world record dirty campaign contributions, our guy don't need no money & we sure don't need money or jobs. We don't need no stinking more international treaties, we have far to many that we've broken as it is. We don't need a country united we need a nation divided & conquered from the inside. And we don't need those stinking Air Traffic Controlers on the Federal payroll or those Marshalls protecting our skies. And anyone who says we could use the money at home instead of for waging war just ask the poor, the jobless, the tired, the undereducated & those sickly free booters, the elderly or the children. Ask the backwoods folk of North Carolina if they aren't happy about all the days off they're getting, hell they'd rather eat cake & hunt squirrels & possums. And we don't need to save face & beg the UN & others to help us out in Iraq when they're just a bunch of worthless commies that told us so along with the rest of the world & the stinkers that don't want the cost of mopping up our mess & paying for it to boot, don't need them either. What we do need is a stinking Pres with a criminal record that should take more vacation days & a drunk driver to drive the country & an upstanding guy who'll go AWOL from the National Guard and desert the military during a time of war as commander in chief. We really could use a secret shadow government to protect us all from our selves. We need to continue to the new policy of attacking more nations. The only world opinion we need is that all nations fear our might & know it will be used. We really need to treat the symptoms of aids & terrorism instead of trying to overwhelm ourselves pondering about the causes & God forbid we don't need to remedy them. And we need our troops back here on the home front where there's a new war raging instead of dying for those lying SOBs in some sand pit that don't amount to a hill of beans. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Don Firth Date: 05 Sep 03 - 04:09 PM Jeez, Barry! You just plagarized that right off the Project for the New American Century web site, didn't you!?? Well, you did paraphrase a bit, I guess. That's been the Bush administration's policy all along, and they've even said so! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: TIA Date: 05 Sep 03 - 04:26 PM I had been hearing from a local war supporter (and WWII vet - sincere thanks to him) that the supposed quagmire in Iraq is similar to the occupation of Germany after WWII. Then, several days ago, I heard Rumsfeld say the same thing. Did a little digging, and found this...the real story (?). Does he never tire of deception and spin. It's absolutely f'in shameless. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Amos Date: 05 Sep 03 - 05:36 PM Dear Gawd -- the man is a spin doctor who has succumbed to his own treatment. Wonder who fed him this crap? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Barry Finn Date: 06 Sep 03 - 12:14 AM I did but it's not any less true. I didn't get it from a site I got it in an e-mail from a friend. If you look on my past posts concerning WMD, Iraq, this present council of mighty rich & powerful jerks & the idot that's their fighead you'll see that I've been very critical of this whole scenario. How many times can one point out the coincidences? How many ways can these deceptions be exposed? I guess it'll take as long as we allow it but the pile of shit we're being fed is begining to taste very nasty & it's making so sick, it's killing me, you & ours. How will I ever sit on my sore ass again? How could these demons ever respect the people they're supposed to represent when they keep heaping the same fowl smelling trash on "We The People", privately they must be having a good laugh at our expense. I feel like they come by daily to piss on me & you & then tell us that it's in our best interest. Whose respecting who here? Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Don Firth Date: 06 Sep 03 - 04:45 AM I was kidding while at the same time agreeing with you, Barry. Take a look at the link I posted and you'll see that they admit to just about everything you said, only they sugar-coat it and try to make it sound like the acts to true patriots and humanitarians. Look at the names of the people who signed the "Statement of Principles." That was written in 1997, but most of these people are now either in the Bush administration or closely associated with it. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Amos Date: 06 Sep 03 - 10:55 AM Barry: What I meant was, I wonder who drummed up the parallel to post-Hitler Germany and fed it to Rumsfeld to use as another fraudulent self-serving peace of dummy PR. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Bill D Date: 06 Sep 03 - 11:30 AM the title of this thread really hit home when yesterday's Washington Post came out with this cartoon from Tom Toles |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Barry Finn Date: 06 Sep 03 - 11:36 PM Hey Don, I know you were in agreement & you were somewhat in jest but I did take it from elsewhere. Not only has what you're saying been sugar coated but it's been put a arms length & at a distance from us & the other untruths that they should properly be standing next to. It's easier to see (& harder to swallow) the whole scope when all the facts & dots are connected. The media has complicity in aiding to continue this clouding of truths & half truths. As it stands now I don't think there's one politician that could speak on any topic telling the whole truth nor one news agency or mainstream correspondent that could or would report on it if a truth were to be told. All we have running this goverment are a bunch lously choices where we're only left with who's the lesser of 2 evils. Presently we're "begging" the UN & others to help with Iraq. After we told them all to bugger off why should they or anyone else be paying a price for something they wouldn't buy in the 1st place. We don't have the policing capabilities, the man/women power, the money for just us to stay the full term, the will of the American public to continue watching the deaths of our soldiers (for, what's the reason, we seem to change this like a baby changes diapers) over a pack of lies & we never had the world or God for that matter on our side. This all has Bush's back to the wall with the elections right around the corner, he's gotta give somewhere if he even thinks he'd be a 2nd termer. In his road map to peace (he wanted a feather on this one for his Pap, sorry his hat) he forgot how fast the lanes change in the land of the drifting sands. Damn idiot couldn't make sense of a map never mind a blueprint even on his own ranch he keeps running into his own shit but he's no longer getting up & smelling like roses. Hell, he wouldn't know a short cut from a dead end much less his ass from his elbow. There was a time when we could've been a contender. We could've been proud. We could've been seen as fair, helpful & just & above all we could've walked mighty tall if we had only taken our feet off the throats of others & given them our heart & hand instead. Where is the terror if you don't bleed other nations, if you don't starve the common people, if you don't stand by to watch death rein from the skies all for the sake of a few pennies & a few pills. Where is the terror, it's us (from Doombury, "we have just seen the enemy & it's us"). You sure got us into a mess this time Olie. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 07 Sep 03 - 02:40 AM In Today's Brisbane Sunday Mail (Oz) small article on Irag The words "wounded" and "injured" are used interchangably, even referring to the same individual incident. Looks like the 51'st state's media thought police are slipping... Love the cartoon Bill D ... Johhny Howard (Cheeseball Chucklehead!) and co are starting to get bogged down in their own quagmire (Iraq didn't help) - it started with "Tampa" and "Kids overboard"... Robin |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: TIA Date: 12 Sep 03 - 02:09 PM 7/26/03, Rush Limbaugh on The Rush Limbaugh Show "Folks, we're getting a daily death update out of Iraq, and we're hearing slogans like, "One a day," and "Our troops are being slaughtered," from the Democrats, as their willing accomplices in the press try to concoct this notion that the casualty rate over there is outrageous and intolerable. The following statistics come from the Centers for Disease Control website: On a daily basis, on average, 10 Americans die by drowning, and nine Americans die by fire in their homes. 14 Americans die by pedestrian accidents. 27 Americans die in falls. On average, 50 Americans a day are murdered. 118 die in auto accidents, and 25 people die from A.I.D.S. every day, on average. Yesterday, two Americans died in battle in Iraq." 8/26/03, Brit Hume on Fox News: "Two hundred seventy-seven U.S. soldiers have now died in Iraq, which means that statistically speaking U.S. soldiers have less of a chance of dying from all causes in Iraq than citizens have of being murdered in California, which is roughly the same geographical size. The most recent statistics indicate California has more than 2300 homicides each year, which means about 6.6 murders each day. Meanwhile, U.S. troops have been in Iraq for 160 days, which means they're incurring about 1.7 deaths, including illness and accidents each day." 9//12/03, TIA does his right wing fuzzy math homework and discovers that Bush and the ChickenHawks are indeed on the very front lines. annual area murders per murders per Hume/Limbaugh Site population murders (sq mi) 100 sq.mi. 1000 people Danger Rating DC 572059 239 68 3502 0.4 Iwo Jima MD 5296486 430 12407 35 0.1 Bull Run 3 RI 1048319 45 1545 29 0.0 Biggest Little Slaughterhouse in the Union CA 33871648 2079 63707 13 0.1 I am Looging fuhr Sarah Connor DE 783600 25 2489 10 0.0 Yeah, but there's no income tax Iraq* 140000 282 168754 2 2.0 A Walk in the Park AK 626932 27 656425 0 0.0 Your Momma's Bosom * represents numbers for US troops (+/-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 12 Sep 03 - 02:27 PM Of course it's not just US soldiers being killed. Or even US and other occupying soldiers. News just in of ten Iraqi policeman killed by the US Army in "friendly fire", two days after other incidents in which policemen were shot and a hospital shot up by the peacekeepers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 12 Sep 03 - 05:02 PM On the day we hear about those ten Iraqi police killed by jittery US troops, it would be timely to recall how Tony Benn saw the risk of atrocities like 911 - and for that matter how he assessed the Iraqi regime. For those whose memories need a nudge, CLICK HERE and follow the link to "audio gallery" and select sample #2. When you've listened (don't worry, it's very short) you might want to double check that this was indeed Benn speaking in the UK House of Commons in 1998. There could hardly be a better justification for the "as predicted" bit of this thread's title. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Amos Date: 12 Sep 03 - 06:00 PM I would be interested, given the messiness of the present situation, to hear any recommendations that can be offered as to the best exit strategy. Aside from making George do it all personally. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 12 Sep 03 - 06:15 PM The old saying "Well, I wouldn't start from here" is irrsistable here, but not helpful, because you always have to "start from here". An announced timetable for complete withdrawal of occupying troops, and for any outside peacekeepers to be placed under control of an Iraqi government, that's an essential starting point. And an immediate priority of getting the basic services, such as water and electricity back on line. There are people with the expertise and understanding of how that can be done, and clearly they aren't the ones being employed by the occupying forces. During the transitional period, an administration in control which treats the killing of Iraqi civilians as being every bit as serious as the killing of members of the occupying armies. And zero tolerance for the carpetbaggers who would try to profit from privatisation and reconstruction. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Greg F. Date: 12 Sep 03 - 06:38 PM Well, they could do a replay of the evacuation of Saigon- one of the finer moments in U.S. history |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Bobert Date: 12 Sep 03 - 07:08 PM Yo Rush, Well, danged! Who would have thought as downtown Baghdad as being the safest place on the planet to live? Well, if that's the case, why are we spending a billion dollars a day when there are so many other dangerous places to be? Ahhhh, before you spin that into gold let me ask you how many millions (or is it billions) of tax dollars are being spent to spin dogsh*t into gold? Seems that your guys change their stories on a daily basis.... Ahhhhh, llike whats wrong with the danged truth? Oh yeah, that might mean that would undercut the PR campaigns and lead to more truth! Silly me?!?... Don't know what got into me.... Nevermind... Bobert p.s. Yo, Rush, who's buried in Grants Tomb? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Ebbie Date: 13 Sep 03 - 01:57 AM Well, danged! as some might say, I've been waiting for the longest for a place to post this- might as well plug it in here... Bill O'Reilly, Fox News Rabid, on Good Morning, America March 18, 2003: "And I said on my program that if the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation and I will not trust the Bush administration again." I can't listen to the man myself- has anyone heard him apologize? Doug? :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Barry Finn Date: 13 Sep 03 - 02:48 AM He shouldn't have trusted him in the first place. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Ebbie Date: 13 Sep 03 - 10:27 AM That's where the 'rabid' part comes in, Barry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Metchosin Date: 13 Sep 03 - 01:03 PM something that was announced on a Canadian broadcast the other day, which I, as a Canadian, was not aware (sad to admit)....Canada has lost more people in "Peace Keeping" missions than any other nation in the world. I suspect the Canadian body count will skyrocket, when again we are expected to do "our part" in this sorry debacle....we are already stretched to the limit trying to mop up the messes in other parts of the world, we need this like a hole in the head....Thanks Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair, so sorry you just couldn't keep it in your pants. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: TIA Date: 15 Sep 03 - 10:58 AM We must be patient with Mr. O'Reilly. Just 'cause we haven't found them doesn't mean they're not there. Even though... (sorry, couldn't get a clicky to work) Iraq WMD report shelved due to lack of evidence Sunday, 14 September , 2003, 13:53 London: After failing to get any evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the US and Britain have decided to delay indefinitely the publication of a full report on the controversial issue, media reported today. Efforts by the Iraq Survey Group, an Anglo-American team of 1,400 scientists, military and intelligence experts, to scour Iraq for the past four months to uncover evidence of chemical or biological weapons have so far ended in failure, The Sunday Times claimed in its report. It had been expected that a progress report would be published tomorrow but MPs on the British Parliaments security and intelligence committee have been told that even this has been delayed and no new date set. British defence intelligence sources have confirmed that the final report, which is to be submitted by David Kay, the survey groups leader, to George Tenet, head of the CIA, had been delayed and may not necessarily even be published, the paper said. In July, Kay suggested on US television that he had seen enough evidence to convince himself that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had had a programme to produce weapons of mass destruction. He expected to find "strong" evidence of missile delivery systems and "probably" evidence of biological weapons. But last week British officials said they believed Kay had been "kite-flying" and that no hard evidence had been uncovered. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: GUEST Date: 06 May 04 - 04:55 PM I kept humming 'waist deep in the Big Muddy' to myself, finally did a search for the words, and found this thread too. Sheesh, you look like a bunch of Nostradomuses, things have gone as you said. A year ago many anti-bushites sounded like nuts, but, now it's the neocons that look like nuts--er---fascisti. Just thought I'd refresh so ye's could see how brilliant you were. Here's to getting out of the Big Muddy before another town and brigade of folks on both sides are killed... |
