BS: George W.'s Real New Plan

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Oct 07 - 08:32 AM

Your theory, Teribus. Waiting patiently for any evidence to back it up. Until then, my statement has as much validity as yours. It is somewhat hard to swallow that if Israel had uncovered nefarious intent through this raid, it would not want to publicize this. Israeli censorship is out of control--as is recognized by many Israeli journalists.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Oct 07 - 02:34 AM

"You could say the same about the Israelis" - Ron Davies.

Not at all Ron - it tends toindicate that they got what they wanted and may use the same MO again.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 11:49 PM

Teribus--

"On the Syrian raid, the more the Syrians stay quiet about it, the guiltier they look."

You could say the same about the Israelis--if they hit something worth hitting, why the tight censorship on the raid? I heard on " To the Point", public radio current events program, that even mentioning the censorship is itself censored.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: kendall
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 04:53 PM

What has Condi Rice ever done that amounts to a cane hole in a cow flap?

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 04:18 PM

His plan is to outlive his friends.

(make a new plan Stan)

Happy trails in the heat Pete.
Your so damn scary Larry.
You ain't so holy Foley
I hope you find no solice Gonzales.
Your roads lead to Rome Rove
Your kindness is unfelt Rumsfeld
What's the rush Bush?
Go fuck yourself Cheney

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 01:24 PM

Thanks for the interesting link Teribus (really), but I still want to know the metrics for measuring:

"...the success rate for the IED's against the detection and disposals."

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 12:43 PM

The plan is to ááÝäÇä ÐßÑì ÇÛÊíÇá ãæÓíÞÇÑäÇ ÇáßÈíÑ Úáí ãÚÇÔí Úáì íÏ ÌíÔ ÇáÇÍÊáÇá Ýí ÇáËÇãä íæäíæ ãä ÓäÉ 1958. ÝáÇ íÝæÊäí Ýí åÐÇ Çáíæã Ãä ÃæÌå
ÊÍíÉ

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 12:13 PM

Our strategy (in the micromanagement sense) has always been to drive around as bait and wait until we are blown up and then see if there are any hostiles in the area.

Hire TITAN BLackwater and 123 other private firms to do the real torture and simple jobs the army used to do until the good ol boys found that there is a good profit in triple billing for everything and stealing the rest.

Damn the Country, FULL Privatization ahead YAHOOO

boom

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Sep 07 - 06:02 PM

Detection and disposals Guest TIA:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7012889.stm

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 28 Sep 07 - 04:49 PM

success in detection of ieds
Would that be the monkeys that Morrocco offered as part of its contribution to the Multinational force?

As far as Afghanistan, Canadians are still getting killed there quite frequently, (in fact much more than the US casualties in IRaq - in proportional terms to the number of troops committed)

(basically after trying to fight in the open the Taliban failed and have now adopted the Iraqi IED tactics, even a slow rate of attrition results in growing opposition back home. And while I actually support the action in Afghanistan, counter-insurgency warfare takes years, and right now in Canada there is definitely no political will to continue past the current commitment to 2009. ANd no other Nato countries are willing to put their troops in the trouble areas of Afghanistan. So we'll see indeed what happens.

on another note; we get very little reports of how effective the Canadian forces are in Afghanistan. A recent Frontline documentary
did a story on a Canadian forward base..

The Canadians tried to get on good terms with the local villagers by offering to fix their generators - but no luck after weeks of trying to fix them (no spare parts) - they set out to a nearby town to obtain parts but its not like Canada - theres no Canadian Tire Store around the corner.. the expedition ended up a waste of time they couldnt find parts and also shot up and killed some Afghans who happened to drive to close to the convoy (causing further local resentment)

It would have been way cheaper in my opinion to just bring over some new generators but all of this made more difficult by the fact that Canada doesnt have any helicopters over there..(which is another story)

Then, as a friendly gesture they offered free medical services to the local village. And quite a few of them came to take advantage of this
(despite being threatened by Taliban if they did) So how did that pan out? Well after seeing about half the villagers, the Canadian Doctors
called it off as they ran out of supplies.

A couple of weeks later the Canadians pulled out of that base.
It really makes me wonder how effective they whole thing is..

The Taliban can them come in and behead any village leader that sympathizes with the coalition troops..

Never mind the coalitions failure to do anything about the opium crop..

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 28 Sep 07 - 04:16 PM

"Oh I don't know Guest petr, ** compare the success rate for the IED's against the detection and disposals ** and I think you'll find that the MNF are doing rather well..."


Okay, I'll bite. If MNF detects and disposes of... let's say 50 IEDs, and one that they have missed kills two soldiers, who wins this round? I just want to know how the scoring works.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Sep 07 - 03:24 PM

Hey, T, you objected to having your 'name' spelt Ter E bus' but the most common spelling of Taliban does not have an E. :)

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Sep 07 - 02:10 PM

We'll see Guest petr, we'll see.

Again had a look at the BBC's web-site famous for painting as black and as pesimistic picture as possible about both Iraq and Afghanistan.

In Iraq another senior commander of Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq has been killed, no reports of any major attacks apart from the failed attempt on a Sunni Sheik who is heloping his Government.

In Afghanistan almost no new news at all, an unsuccessful car bomb attempt in Kabul which saw the two bombers killed for no other casualties. BBC are chattering about the Taleban regrouping over the coming winter and coming back more determined than ever. This after the BBC's prediction of an unstoppable "Spring" offensive in Helmand that never happened followed by an equally unstoppable "Summer" offensive that never happened. Neither happened because down in Helmand the Taleban are being harried from pillar to post and losing men right left and centre. How would you describe that petr? They've really got us on the ropes haven't they.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 28 Sep 07 - 11:58 AM

oh really teribus, so they won and can go home?
youre kidding yourself.

Everyone knows they've lost, including BUsh, but hes determined to pass on the problem to the next administration. The so-called surge has done nothing as expected despite Petraus' report (did anyone expect him to say anything else). The so-called success with the Sunni SHeiks in Anbar had nothing to do with the surge -as they realize they will have to deal with the shiites after the US pulls out.
And Petraeus predicted that the surge can wind down early in 08
- of course it will, they dont have anymore troops and its time for many to go..

The Democrats wont insist on a withdrawal until Bush is gone anyway, why give up the one stick they have against the republicans..

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Sep 07 - 01:05 AM

Oh I don't know Guest petr, compare the success rate for the IED's against the detection and disposals and I think you'll find that the MNF are doing rather well.

Just had a look at the BBC's pages for the Middle East and Asia, that covers events happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nothing at all for Iraq and news of the latest NATO/ISAF Operation "Palk" in Afghanistan where 160 Taleban have been killed.

On the Syrian raid, the more the Syrians stay quiet about it, the guiltier they look, going by past form.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 11:52 PM

Re: Syria: Believe it or not, the Wall St Journal (editorial page, of course) was speculating the North Koreans were also involved. Sounded far-fetched to me--I didn't read the whole column--but if I recall correctly, they were theorizing that North Korea had transferred some nuclear technology to Syria.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 07:19 PM

billions of $ of US technology has been unable to deal with relatively simple technology of modified artillery shells in IRaq.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 11:40 AM

Condi Rice says that I am against the Iraq war for the same reasons that people were not against slavery during out civil war.

Thats like accusing me of embracing slavery.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 11:16 AM

It would only ever be pure speculation as to what they hit and whether or not a raid was mounted to snatch whatever before the air strike. But one thing is for certain I bet that it has put the Syrians, the Iranians and the Russians on notice and illustrated that US technology and the Israeli Air Force can still run circles round the very latest in Russian air defence systems (Russia recently sold such to both the Iranians and the Syrians).

As some have noted, the Syrians have been very quiet about it, so it must have been something that they don't want attention drawn to.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 07:49 PM

While, yeah, I am concerned about these littel sergical attacks the Isreali's are carrying out, I am equally puzzeled why the US is flying nuclear missles over our own heads...

"Geeze, Ralph, didn't realize them things could hurt anyone???..."

Nevermind...

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 07:22 PM

Well, the problem is, what did they alledgedly hit??

If it was a nuclear program, more power to them: WE should have the resolve to uphold UN rules ( NPT) by action when diplomacy has obviously failed.

If it was military supplies to Hezbollah, then the UN truce terms from last summer REQUIRE **ALL** nations to prevent them from getting to Hezbollah, so that is ok, too.

On the other hand, if it were anything else, why hasn't Syria made some comment, and provided some evidence, to the rest of the world?

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: bobad
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 07:18 PM

I am wondering why Syria isn't raising more of a stink over it.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 07:10 PM

Anyone have any (printable) thoughts on the recent but very secret jaunt Israel allegedly made into Syria?

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Alba
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 07:06 PM

ROFL, sorry but the spam that has been posted (and most likely will be removed very soon) for just a second looked like an answer to Teribus's post!!
So I am easily amused, sue me.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 11:11 AM

Now then petr, just from memory, HMAS Melbourne cut two of her escorts in half during her lifetime, HMAS Voyager in 1964 and the last being the USS Frank E Evens in 1969. Around about the same time HMS Ark Royal, while under the command of Raymond Lygo, cut the back end off a Russian Kotlyn Class Destroyer. Not carelessness, or anything like that, you see when an aircraft carrier is engaged in flying operations it must maintain a steady speed and course into wind, it cannot alter for other shipping. That is why it displays the international codes for a vessel engaged in special operations. Any vessel ignoring that, is going to come off decidedly second best. The incident you mention with the dhow did take place during night flying operations. As such it seems rather harsh that the Captain of the Kennedy was relieved of his command, the incident with the "Ark Royal" also occurred during flying operations and Lygo went on to be promoted to Flag Rank.

I believe that there were rather a lot of British Task Force ships well within range in San Carlos Water for some considerable time.   Sandy Woodward had rather a lot to ask of the 12 fully air-to-air combat capable Sea Harriers that he had at his disposal, and the carriers were therefore kept well out to sea to the east of the Islands.

Conqueror had to load Whithead Mk8 torpedoes to take on the Belgrano (A Second World War torpedo for a Second World War target). The mega-intelligent torpedos in use these days are designed primarily to sink other submarines at depth, their warheads are not best suited to put down large ships.

The Straits of Hormuz are pretty tight in places, they are also very deep, and a tanker, particularly the large double hulled super-tankers take a lot of sinking, particularly if full of oil.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: GUEST,Peter T.
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 11:05 AM

Like I said, Plan B. yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 04:21 AM

sure teribus aircraft carriers run into fishing boats all the time.
and the captain of the Kennedy was promoted? (I guess the Cole was just a distant memory)

considering they couldnt detect one dhow, Id be less concerned about the safety of those launching the torpedoes -

and since you brought up the Belgrano - it only took one exocet to knock out the Sheffield (and thats 30year old technology now)
there is a reason the British kept their ships out of range.

regarding the international waterway business, well back in the tanker war 20years ago, how many other countries went to war against IRan?
(also it wouldnt need to do too much - the strait is pretty tight in places, sink some tankers and watch the price of oil go up)

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Peace
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 03:31 AM

Unless nuclear weapons are on the launch pad 24/7/365, the chances of a response from countries within short range of each other getting theirs into the air are slim. Any first strike would likely utilize air burst to take advantage of the EMP. Others would be targeted to military areas and government areas. However, having subs capable of launching nuclear ordnance then forces the first strikers to consider what's coming in on them, because it will be. And that should be enough to make everyone go back to the drawing board to ask what Plan B is. One would hope, anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 02:12 AM

Sorry petr, I forgot to mention. The Straits of Hormuz are an international seaway, that has a special meaning in relation to the United Nations Security Council. Should Iran ever attempt to close those Straits, it would not be the US it would be fighting.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 01:54 AM

Ships are involved in collisions at sea all the time petr, just read Lloyds List to discover how often. Aircraft carriers have a particularly bad reputation for it, they are extremely dangerous things to be playing around especially if they are launching or recovering aircraft. Was that the case in 2004 when the collision with the dhow took place?

It does not matter what is used to carry the weapon the situation and requirements are still the same:

- Accurate intelligence
- Positioning
- Target acquisition data
- Firing solution

You must somehow gather all of those to mount your attack and you must do it without communicating and without attracting attention.

As for part b) It was not very successfully done back in the 80's was it petr. Not a single tanker was stopped or sunk. On the subject of submarines sinking ships, you might be interested in taking a look at what had to be used to sink the Belgrano, any idea why? The task of the armament carried by SSN's is primarily anti-submarine, as are the torpedoes carried by SSBN's. Against a ship as massive as the double hulled super-tankers of today, a submarine could fire it's entire outfit of torpedoes against that ship and achieve nothing. Way back in the early 70's one sub captain said that if faced with such a target in wartime he would disable it then hang around to sink whatever came to rescue it.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 06:11 PM

re; the Shkval supercavitating torpedo.

Im not really in awe of anything the either the RUssian Navy or the US navy (for that matter) has Teribus.

by the way it was a Canadian Agent that secured one of those torpedoes
much to Putins displeasure.

and you didnt exactly say what answer the US navy has (other than that its well practiced)

(in July 2004 the aircraft carrier USS John F. Kennedy collided with an arab dhow..The navy relieved the commander after the incident)
if the US navy is unable to detect a simple fishing vessel (that could actually be carrying a bomb or torpedo on board -Im not so sure about taking out a 300+kmh underwater torpedo)

part b: the Iranians certainly could target tanker traffic (as they did back in the 80s)

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 05:53 PM

>>I'm glad, 282, that the UK's complicit culpability was brought up. To my mind, if we are to assign blame for this stupid, indefensible war, the UK would get a hefty share of it. If Blair had NOT acquiesced Bush would NOT have invaded.<<

That's how I feel also. There would have been no Coalition without Britain. I think if Britain had told the US no and put pressure on other European nations to follow suit then it is very unlikely Japan or other Asian nations would send troops. No Coalition. And Bush couldn't have invaded without a Coalition.

>>Blair was totally cynical about it- he had the Downing Street memo in hand. He knew what was what. And he STILL chose to go with Big Brother.<<

I can only surmise Blair, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their ilk are criminally minded people. That's all that can explain it. They had to know this couldn't work and went ahead and did it anyway. They had to know that sooner or later they would get caught but they did it anyway. Both figured they would be proven right and be forever after regarded as saviors of humanity. For the glory and to hell with everything else!

It's like Bush plunked a huge amount of money down on a certain number at the roulette wheel and did it with such calm certainty and complete confidence in himself that the others around the table all began plunking their money down on the same number--putting their faith in this calm, cool stranger's self-assured little smirk. He must have known something and everyone in the room wanted in on it.

The bets are down, the wheel has been spun, it is slowing down and the ball has settled in a hole and it looks to all appearances like the stranger's number missed tragically. The rest are grateful they didn't lay down the same amount as the stranger did because he just pissed away a fortune that was someone else's money. He thought he was going to double for them and really surprise them.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 05:25 PM

Peter T. - 23 Jan 07 - 03:45 PM

"You don't need a second strike capability."

Then why do you think that the US, USSR, UK, and France expand all that time, effort, resources and money to develop not only second, but third strike options, if they are not needed.

You partially answer that question yourself:

Because irrespective of where and how you are hit - You need to be able to guarantee that you will be able to retaliate - That you cannot do with nuclear bombs dropped by aircraft, or by static land based missile systems.

At a Royal Institute of Strategic Studies Seminar held at Exeter University during the bad old days of the "Cold War". One question that was posed was where should one direct that second strike if pre-emptively attacked, concentrations of military targets, or centres of government and population.

The Army were all for targeting the strike against the former, while the RAF's preference was for the latter. The Navy's presentation stated neither. The premise that you are capable of directing your second strike implies that you can communicate. That being so you communicate with your attacker and invite him to surrender, or come to terms to restore the status quo. The reasoning behind this approach being that while we may have lost everything, you still have everything to lose.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Peace
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 05:22 PM

Yes, Israel does have submarines. They have a minimum of three type 800 Dolphin class submarines which are capable of carrying nuclear ordnance.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Peter T.
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 03:45 PM

No. You don't need a second strike capability. You just need to be able to retaliate. That was all part of the ridiculous escalatory fantasies of the cold warriors. America and Russia always had the capacity to retaliate. The second strike crap was to keep the stupid game going for the defence industry.

At the moment, although there is secrecy involved, Israel obviously has the capacity to wipe out any nearby opponent forever. The idea that someone could launch a nuclear strike against Israel that would eliminate Israel's ability to fire back is crazy. They have hardened sites and deadfalls and the usual stuff the Americans have. And even if they didn't, how would an opponent know?

The Israelis probably also have submarines (anyone know?) that are essentially invulnerable.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 10:17 AM

GUEST,petr - 20 Jan 07 - 02:07 PM

"the us navy really doesnt have a defense against the supercavitating torpedoes.

but in fact the Iranians could target tanker traffic with plenty of repercussions for oil traders"

Part a) of the above - "defence against supercavitating torpedoes" - Oh yes it does, in depth and rather well practiced.

Part b) of the the above - "Iranians could target tanker traffic" - Oh no they couldn't, or wouldn't.

You and Peace seem to be rather over-awed by this torpedo, to the extent that you have forgotten the vulnerability of the vessel that carries it and the array of vessels, weapon systems and weapons that would be deployed against it. As always it boils down to the following:
- Accurate intelligence
- Positioning
- Target acquisition data
- Firing solution

Your Iranian submarine commander must somehow gather all of those, before he even opens the outer-doors of his tubes. He must do it without communicating and he must manouevre without attracting attention.

Also remember that the former Soviet Union bankrupted itself five times trying to develope a weapon that would be successful against a US Navy Strike Carrier and its associated battle-group. They never managed to do it, and have not done so with this latest toy, that they have sold to the Iranians.

The policy of MAD would not apply in the middle-east. For MAD to be viable each "nuclear power" must have a second strike capability, and at the moment none do. While no second strike capability exists, the doctrine that applies to a regional conflict would be "who strikes first wins".

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 11:21 AM

I think Israel will rely on a MAD policy. History shows it works.

Like Peter T, I recall the era (which seemed to last for most of my life) and 'hiding-under-desks drills' in elementary school and the air raid sirens that went off near noon in New Your City (in 1964 or 1965. It's no fun, but it was much better than the actual use of nuclear weapons would have been.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Peter T.
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 10:57 AM

Many nations fear lots of things. I grew up in America believing that the Russians were about to kill us all in 15 minutes.

That does not give any nation a blank cheque.


yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: GUEST,Arnie
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 08:45 AM

There have been a few interesting articles in The Jerusalem post recently. Much of the Israeli mindset now is now on how to avoid the next Holocaust which will be unlike the last one in which Israel will BE wiped out with a few nuclear strikes in just a very short period of time. They believe the Iranians have this as a primary goal in mind regardless of how many other innocent Arabs, Palestinians get killed in the process. They also believe that after Iran carries this out there will be no retaliatory strikes from the U.S.A. Their bind is what to do about it instead of just sit back and let it happen. Read this latest speech by Netenyahu http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467780742&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 08:02 PM

To imagine that any sovereign nation is "the saviours of humanity" is absurd, and and nation whose people think that way is a nation bent on establishing an empire by treading upon other nations.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 06:55 PM

"Although I dislike American foreign policy and indeed the American culture/way of life, I believe the American people, because of their naivety can be the saviours of humanity"

"What an absurd notion" says Peter... Well I don't know Peter, is it really as absurd as the creator sending his son as a sacrifice to absolve humanity from sin?
That absurdity has survived two thousand years, causing the deaths of untold millions on the way.

I have friends with dual nationality who tell me that in general Americans are extremely naive about politics, seeing things in the most simplistic terms, respecting authority, and believing in the best Hollywood tradition, that good will triumph in the end.
They believe in independence, and have a healthy distrust of state welfare.
They are on the whole kindly people who dislike arrogance.

We in the UK on the other hand, know too much.
We know all politicians are corrupt, therefore feel free to be corrupt ourselves.
We know drug abuse, prostitution, exploitation and injustice as symptoms of our social/economic system...again corruption from the top down. We know that there are no ideals left to discover for our young people.....we have given up hope for the future.

If humanity is to survive, we must believe that we are worth the effort involved to accomplish that survival and these silly Americans still think we are worth saving.....Maybe it was Walt Disney who told them so .....but they still believe.

To survive as a species we must change every thing which has ruled our lives in the past.
How we live, how we work, how we relate to one another.
We have to realise that everything we have been told in the past about material possesions or the virtue of hard work to better ourselves financially was as big a pack of lies as the reasons for going to war in Iraq.

Of the developed Western nations, only the Americans are daft enough or optimistic enough to believe we can, or even deserve to survive...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 01:34 AM

I should add that unlike you, I am not attacking the people who put the man in office- and repeated it.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 01:33 AM

I'm glad, 282, that the UK's complicit culpability was brought up. To my mind, if we are to assign blame for this stupid, indefensible war, the UK would get a hefty share of it. If Blair had NOT acquiesced Bush would NOT have invaded.

Blair was totally cynical about it- he had the Downing Street memo in hand. He knew what was what. And he STILL chose to go with Big Brother.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Peace
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 12:29 AM

We already KNOW this stuff. (Any of you Americans have Canadian money? We put microphones in them ya know.)

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 07:48 PM

You're right, Peter--it's the Canadians. Let's stuff the ballot box for them. The Americans are only interested in saving time--or a dollar.

What's a bit of purple prose between friends?

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Peter T.
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 07:43 PM

No,no, Canadians are the saviours of humanity. Saviours of humanity. What an absurd notion.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 06:30 PM

The American people "can be the saviours of humanity". Or frightened sheep. Of late, unfortunately, it's been mostly the latter. We can hope that has changed--perhaps the 2006 elections are a positive sign.

But we'll see--- for instance, with the coming propaganda campaign against Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: 282RA
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 06:12 PM

We voted Blair and his chums back into power, although most of us knew we had been manipulated,lied to and made complicit in the deaths of hundreds of thousands (my figures, because my guess is a likely to be true as Teribus's).

>>The UK electorate are in fact more culpable than the Americans, as we have a better news service, more discussion in the media and in general , more brains.<<

I couldn't believe that Britain was going to help the US invade Iraq. I was really hoping they would spearhead an opposition. Then when the Downing Street Memos came out, I was flabbergasted. Britain KNEW the whole scheme was crackbrained and unworkable and STILL went along with it. I thought it was just Tony Blair and then in the elections, the British reelected him!!

>>The shocking fact is that most people preferred to vote for blood spattered criminals, knowing they were criminals, than for other parties who may have made life slightly more difficult domestically.
We should be thoroughly ashamed of ourselves....we the great cynics are in fact the great self serving cowards.<<

Americans are the same. "Oh, no, I'm not voting for a democrat or there go all my tax dollars." Let's keep cutting taxes for the rich in wartime and borrow from Red China. These same Americans who see nothing wrong with Bush doing this would be howling to high heaven if it was a democrat president.

>>Although I dislike American foreign policy and indeed the American culture/way of life, I believe the American people, because of their naivety can be the saviours of humanity.<<

I don't know what that's supposed to mean so I won't argue it with you even though my gut instinct tells me I should.

>>They, unlike us can still see the inherant good in our species....Ake<<

But only in themselves. Everyone else is a devil.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 06:04 PM

Ake--

There have been postings on Mudcat which indicate that Irish people in the UK felt "under suspicion" soon after the first IRA bombings---just for being Irish. Is this not a fair statement?

It's certainly true that in the US directly after 9-11 anybody who even wore a turban was under suspicion--including Sikhs. Frightened people don't think.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 05:22 PM

I wouldn't see the IRA campaign or first bomb as a parallel, as many in the UK sympathised with the aims of the Republican movement.
In fact many would have been pleased to see Thatcher and her government "wiped of the map" by the Brighton bomb.

More of a parallel would be the attack on London on 7/7, but but even then most thinking people saw the bombing as a consequence of Blair's War....THey were disgusted by the tactics employed and the needless loss of life, by were still able to rationalise what they saw...Ake