BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 09:19 PM

But it sells newspapers McGrath...... Like the Hollywood mantra, who cares if its accurate and historically correct? The vast majority of the Dorks who pay to see it will never read a history book, or know the difference if they do.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 08:01 PM

According to highly classified information received by British and
American intelligence officials in the past week... He is also said to have... who is known to have...

Well, it could all be true enough. But equally it could all be a bunch of conveniantly times hooey. "Highly classified" means "you are going to have to take it on trust"; and there is no reason whatsoever to trust what these people say. After all, these were the guys who made up the story about babies being thrown out of incubators in the Kuwait occupation, which was later admitted to have been a complete fabrication.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 05:04 PM

Interesting. You know, I'm not in favor of targetting dissidents, but:

We call them "opposition leaders," like it's just the political party that's not in power. If, say, a bunch of rabid, gun-toting guys in Iowa decided to plan to overthrow the US government, and they got, say, Canada, to arm and train them, and were holding international conferences on what they were gonna do...

... wouldn't we call them "traitors?"

And what would the US do in a similar situation?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 04:47 PM

Saddam orders agents to assassinate Iraqi opposition leaders

According to highly classified information received by British and
American intelligence officials in the past week, Saddam has issued a
presidential decree authorising the murder of leading members of the
Iraqi opposition "by any means necessary".

He is also said to have approached the Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi
- who is known to have a network of "sleeper" agents based in Britain
and Europe - to help him to target Iraqi dissidents.

Iraqi opposition groups are currently engaged in detailed negotiations
over what form a new government will take should Saddam be overthrown. A
conference of all the Iraqi groups is planned for Brussels later this
month. (Sunday Telegraph)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Oct 02 - 06:16 PM

Well, Dougie, I'll admit that T is a tough read. You're gonna need lots of time, patience, and NoDoz but my read on his most recent posts is that he is saying purdy much that none of this can work. That's what brought my "backslide" comment. Heck, you may have time to re-read T's letest "War and Peace" post and see oif that ain't what he's sayin'.

Heck, the boy (or girl...) writes so much that sometimes I just nod off while reading his treaties. Yep, got the scars on the forehead to prove it.

Bobert

I'll be back much later tonight or not at all, Dougie. Gotta cook dinner for the wife and then it's the Bullets (Wizzards, you know... ahhh, basketball) opening game tonight and it's on the TV...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 30 Oct 02 - 05:00 PM

Nicole: the power you are so concerned about that the congress gave Bush recently, was held by every president since Carter (including him). Read my lips. Have no fear. Bush will use it wisely.

Bobert: you are never satisfied. Teribus laid out a perfectly logical plan for establishing a climate that would be conducive to accomplishing EXACTLY what you want to accomplish. A super-dooper meeting! And what do you do? Plead that you have no time! A few threads back folks were appointing you president, with a cabinet of your choice and all the trimmings. If you are going to run things, you have to put aside your own needs such as working for a living, and save the world! Hmmmmmm? :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Oct 02 - 01:16 PM

First of all, T, I do not have the time in my life to complete your assignemnt of taking each country on your list and writing reams and reams about relationships, difference and resources. Some folks here in the Catbox actually, ahhh, are still *working for a living*. Now, working for a living precludes taking on monumental term paper length responses. When I get retired, or what ever it is that you are that allows your hours and hours to write and write and write, then I'll consider your requests for long winded position papers.

However, you say that "Since 11th September, 2001, I do not believe that any American Administration has looked so long or so hard at the middle east inan attempt to fathom a way through the mess, and get a real peace process underway." Well, can't fault you in your logic since there hasn't been but the Bush adminstartion in power since Sept.11th, 2002. But compared to the hard work that both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton put into the Middle East, the Bush Administration looks like an administration that is, ahhh, how shall I say this, ahhh, *just watching*.

But then again, T, you did say that was your "belief" but I'd guarentee you that in the views of most folks on the planet who have been watching Bush's foriegn policy since he became President, you are in the minority. The Isreali/ Palestinian conflict has been a 8spectator sport* for Bush and the Iraqi/Saddam situation not much more than a smoke screen to cover up the undeniable fact that Bush has been asleep at the wheel on domestic issues.

Now, you believe that Saddam has nuckear capabilites? Hmmmmmmm? Do you really *believe* that? Do you really believe that not only does Saddam have these nuclear weapons but that he has unmanned aircraft capapble of delivering them on America's doorstep? Really, T? I really thought we were beyond the fabrication stage of the discussion and then just when it looks like we're making progress, you go and backslide. Well, maybe you didn't. Maybe I just assumed that you were beyond the Bush's PR noise but if you're not, then my apologies and we'll just have to go back to disagreeing...

Peace

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 30 Oct 02 - 12:42 PM

T, I agree that one goal has been accomplished. However, I disagree in that I think that the actions taken to achieve that goal have cause more harm than good.

Once again, we're the evil Americans oppressing the world and crusading against Islam. Once again, we thumbed our nose at our allies and told them to kiss our feet or we'd take our ball and go home.

I don't really agree with that assessment, but there are plenty in other who countries who do. Our reputation has been further damaged, making it more difficult for ANY administration to achieve peaceful goals, and causing more people to hate American for our arrogance and hubris. The world isn't a safer place now, it's been made more dangerous.

Meanwhile, some very damaging legislation has been passed that erodes the foundations of our government. Now that Congress has (illegally) abdicated their Constitution responsibility of oversight, will Bush next threaten to make Congres "irrelevant" if they don't do what he wants?

The issue is far bigger than Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Oct 02 - 12:24 PM

Nicole,

Regarding my theory, I have two questions for you.

1. After three and a half years inactivity, what, in your opinion, prompted the United Nations to act with regard to Iraq?

2. After succeeding in getting the UNSCOM inspection teams out of Iraq, what, in your opinion, prompted the Iraqi Government to issue their invitation to allow UNMOVIC inspection teams to return to complete the work of their predecessors?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Oct 02 - 12:04 PM

Missile defense. It helps if you're already on alert, you know what direction the missile is coming from, and when it's being fired. Under these conditions, the last several tests have been about 50% successful. And they've been working on this off and on since the late Fifties, ABM treaty or not. Your tax dollars at work.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Oct 02 - 12:03 PM

In my post above, Bobert, I outline what has to happen before the various parties will simultaneously declare that Israel has a right to exist.

After everything that Saddam Hussein has said on the subject, and after everything that he has done, what do you think would make him change his mind with regard to Israel.

If you go through the list of countries and factions I've detailed as representing the "interested parties in the region. For each mark down what each wants, who relies on who for support, who trusts who, which regard which as rivals or enemies. You will deduce that collectively, there is precious little common ground among them.

Add to this, an Iraq armed with WMD, including a nuclear capability and your chance of ever achieving a peaceful settlement in the middle east dissappears. What you will have is a nuclear stand-off, and a return to a sort of regional cold war with the Arab nations lining up behind Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Since 11th September, 2001, I do not believe that any American Administration has looked so long and so hard at the middle east in an attempt to fathom a way through the mess, and get a real peace process underway.

The prospect of Iraq acquiring WMD required action to be taken. Your President called the United Nations attention to the potential danger and required it to act - It did, and results are forthcoming.

A new resolution is required, the designated Chairman of UNMOVIC agrees to that, and that it is pointless to send his teams to Iraq until their new mandate is clearly accepted.

The stance being taken by France, is viewed by some as being the voice of caution and moderation. It should always be remembered when assessing anything said by the French, that it is based on the premise, that what is right/beneficial for France, is right/beneficial for the world. France was the country who sold the country with the third largest oil reserves in the world the technology and components to build a nuclear reactor (the one the Israeli's took out before it could become operational)- what did they think Iraq was going to use it for? They are perfectly prepared to pour petrol on the fire in the hope that they will profit once the flames are extinguished.

Where we differ Bobert, is that I believe your President and his advisors have read the situation accurately and are acting accordingly in a responsible manner.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bagpuss
Date: 30 Oct 02 - 11:45 AM

Ariel Sharon's coalition government has collapsed and Ben-Eliezer has resigned in a row over funding of the settlements.

Blick

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 30 Oct 02 - 11:35 AM

Bobert - Can Bush procede without blowing folks up? Well, I think he CAN, even if I don't think that's his desire -- and fortunately we seem to be somewhat moving in that direction. I'm sorry, I don't buy Teribus' theory that this is all just a deep strategy dreamed up by the Prez. Let's face it, the majority of Americans have seen through this latest gambit, despite huge amounts of PR thrown at the subject, and he'd be a bigger fool than he is to actually attack with so little support. I wouldn't put it past 'em to try another Incubator Baby lie to drum up support, tho.

I think a more relevant question is how much is Bush the Lesser interfering with the business at hand. Is he an idiot? Or is he a diversion?

T - I realize that we spend $400 billion a year on the military (er, that's what I was saying, actually.) My point was that we are willing to do so, but the money and time we invest into peace is pathetic. As ye sow, an ye shall reap.

I also know that homing devices and what-not are part of the development process. We're still a LONG way off from a successful system. (I do object to the press releases that talk about how well it's working, when it isn't, yet.) Some folks say it can't be done, but I think that eventually the owlies will get it. They just have to invent whole categories of new technology first. It'll take a bunch of money and a bunch of time.

But how much money and time is really being spent on preventing "rogue" nations from attcking us? IMO, chest-thumping and threatening to overthrow governments increases the risk, not decreases it. In Iraq, we are (well, were) treantening to oust Saddam if he didn't comply, and if he did comply... we were going to oust him anyway. As motivation, that stinks -- it seems designed to cause Iraq to refuse to cooperate so we can attack.

In short, it's counterproductive to threaten war in order to keep the peace. Someone mentioned "Red Dawn" in another thread -- in the script the White House is trying to get us to believe, the teenagers would have been celebrating in the streets at having been liberated instead of fighting back.

I have one more BIG item for your agenda. We can't address funding of terrorists without the US agreeing to cease funding terrorism. We call them "rebels," but in reality they perform terrorists acts using American training and American supplies. We can't achieve accord in the Middle East without ceasing to fund and train groups which try to overthrow the foreign governments at the negotiating table.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Oct 02 - 10:51 AM

You know, T, that they Sauid Propoasl laid down the basics that you suggest. A "simultaneuos" recognition of Isreal's right to exist and the recognition of a Palestinian State. I agree with you that this would be a grand jesture and one that could open up avenues that would lead to a greater and more comprehensive "Summit" that you have outlined and I have been holding as an alternative to the huff-n-puff foriegn policy with which I have been most unhappy.

As for the regime change in Iraq, I would agree that if it were my *choice* to have Tarek Azziz, but I am suggesting that "regime changes" are not a productive goal to be put forth in trying to sell folks on the importance of their participation in the "Summit". Quite the contrary. I mean. like who's gonna show up thinking that Ari Fleisher's gonna try the "single bullet theory"?

I agree, that the "Summit" can't happen under today's climate of distrust but again will state that if Bush were to use a little more diplomacy and a little less sabre rattling that an Isreali/ Palestinian agreement is within reach. And with that featehr in Bush's cap, he could use that as a springboard toward the "Summit".

What bothers me the most is that when Bush came to Washington, he threw the baby out with the bath water. No matter what the Clinton Adminstration was trying to do, Bush just went about doing the opposite. In turning his back on the Middle East he set a climate for not only 9/11 but for the increased fighting between the Isrealis and the Palestinians. I guess that is why I don't hold much faith that he has the vision or wisdom to carry out a foriegn policy that is not fueled by militarism.

But, T, we are in agreement on a number of issues but perhaps not on the one that is most imporatant: Is man capabible of moving forward without blowing folks up?

Peace

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Oct 02 - 05:35 AM

Nicole,

I have never advocated as desireable the blowing up of any apartment blocks. When I said that:

"No-one is advocating the slaughter of Iraqi civilians. The Iraqi's are being offered every opportunity to ensure that that does not happen - all they have to do is comply with what they signed up to do back in 1991."

I simply state the case that the Iraqi Government should comply with the UN resolutions and allow UN inspection teams to verify beyond doubt to the international community that Iraq has complied with those resolutions.

In this the Iraqi Government would be a lot more convincing in their statements if they went to the UN and supported the new US resolution regarding the UNMOVIC Inspections. Instead, they have:

1. Issued an invitation to the UN to send inspection teams to Iraq without pre-conditions.

2. Made a declaration that they do not possess any WMD.

3. Introduced conditions governing the activities of the Inspection Teams on their return.

You said:

"We're willing to spend $400 billion a year and have 100s of thousands of soldiers plus millions of workers laboring to prepare for war."

The United States of America spends that on defence anyway - irrespective of Iraq.

The SDI programme you referred to is being pursued to defend your country against the likelyhood of a rogue attack - a one off. Doug drew your attention to recent successfull tests and you countered by mentioning that homing devices were fitted to the target missiles. There are a couple of good reasons for fitting those homing devices Nicole:

1. In taking on a ballistic missile target armed with a nuclear warhead you are faced with a heavy, dead weight target (parabolic ballistic trajectory). Extremely difficult to deflect, so you have to destroy it. That calls for a massive charge, or a number of smaller charges that succeed in breaking up the target warhead. To test whether or not the pattern of charges and size of charges is correct you must first set up a trial where you can guarantee interception - hence # 1 requirement for a homing device.

2. Simple test safety, if your anti-missile missile looks like it is being "seduced" by another target you can use the homing device to put it back on the right track, and if that fails you self destruct.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Oct 02 - 04:49 AM

One group I ommitted from my list was:

Group 5 - Terrorist Organisations
a) Hamas
b) Hezbollah
c) Islamic Jihad
d) PFLP
e) PLP

An Addition to Group 3, would be Israeli Settlers.

Bobert's contention was that an Emergency Middle East Peace Summit would work by gathering the interested parties together and not adjourning the meeting until settlement had been achieved.

It could never happen of course in that way, the interests and aspirations of the various factions represented would not allow any settlement.

One way it could work is to break down the number of groups and settle their problems in forums where comprise is attainable without that compromise appearing, to one side or the other, as a "sell out" or defeat.

The heart of the problem in the middle east is the state of Israel. Originally, there was never meant to be one under the Sykes-Picot scheme of things, the Jews were to be granted land they could regard as a national homeland in the state of Palestine. Immigration was supposed to be gradual and controlled. In the aftermath of the Second World War, emotion overrode common-sense, the state of Israel was born out of a campaign of terrorism orchestrated by the immigrant organisations Stern Gang and Irgun. The massed immigration and the declaration of the creation of the state of Israel put that state in conflict with its neighbours. Through various wars and negotiations we have arrived at the situation existing today.

A set of basic principles must be established before any talks can take place to settle peace in the middle east.

First and foremost of those is recognition of the state of Israel, by ALL countries in the region, coupled with recognition of a Palestinian State on the part of Israel. Through bi-lateral talks Israel and its immediate neighbours were quite a long way down that road, so who else needs to be convinced?

a) Front line states of Lebanon and Syria, outstanding issues here are water rights and return of the Golan Heights. Settle those and support from Syria and Lebanon for Hamas and Hezbollah can be eliminated provided Israel gives its full support for a sovereign state of Palestine. The latter will require massive aid from the EU, America and the rest of the Arab world.

b) Non-front line Arab States, primarily Iraq, Iran and Libya. They have to recognise Israel as having the right to exist and they have to find a leadership and means of being able to declare that domestically and internationally. There are three stumbling blocks to this at present:

1. Iraq & Saddam Hussein;

The prospect of Iraq developing a WMD programme and the threat that that poses for the region, under Iraq's current leadership completely undermines any prospect of winning a peaceful settlement in the middle east. The establishment of whether or not Iraq has any WMD programme is being addressed now. It would also assist greatly if Saddam Hussein was replaced as Iraq's national leader, my own best candidate for the post would be Tarek Azziz, the Ba'ath party would remain in power, but with a far more rational leader. The only slight niggle in that is my own sneaking feeling that Tarek Azziz is the guy pulling Saddam's strings, that is countered by the fact that he also appears to be an extremely adept diplomat, capable of real statesmanship. He is also perceptive enough to be convinced of a better way, and pragmatic enough to adopt that course of action provided that his country benefits and prospers by it.


2. The reluctance by the countries identified above to renounce the use of terrorism and their willingness to fund terrorist organisations;

Get movement on the recognition of an independent state of Palestine and demonstrate concrete support from the international community and the above reluctance can be overcome.

3. The inability of the elected Palestinian Authority to exercise control over the militants;

Reconstruction of the state of Palestine will require massive aid and careful planning. This must come from the European Union, United states of America and from the Arab States comprising of Groups 1 and 2. The aid effort and reconstruction must be tangible and highly visible to demonstrate to all dissident groups that progress is being made with the help of the international community exclusively for the benefit of the Palestinian people. Displaced Palestinians must be given the choice to live in the new Palestine, or, in the countries where they have sought refuge as full citizens of those countries.   


c) Recognition of a Palestinian State has to sold to the Israeli's and the Israeli Settlers. The biggest stumbling block to the accomplishment of this objective is the settlements in occupied territory. This will be the hardest thing for any Israeli Government to sell to its own people, but a solution is not impossible, given a stark enough choice, based of the greatest good for the greatest number, the settlers will relocate back within Israel's borders.

Get that far down the road Bobert and then you could have your summit.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 08:54 PM

And perhaps they will, Nicole, perhaps they will!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 07:49 PM

And if we could also get them snipers in the trunks of the Chevy Caprices to cooperate with homing devices, all would be well...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 07:24 PM

Yes, Doug. The last two tests also had homing devices in the incoming missiles.

If all of our enemies will just be so kind as to only send one missile at a time, with properly configured homing devices so the interceptor missiles can find them, then the missile shield works perfectly!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 07:20 PM

Uh, Nicole, the last two tests of the missle shield system were successful. The missles intercepted and destroyed the incoming target.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 06:53 PM

Yep, that's an impressive agenda. You ought to email that to the Secretary of State and tell him you started it for him.

You're right. Peace is hard. It requires work to happen. It requires the effort and cooperation of many countries. We're willing to spend $400 billion a year and have 100s of thousands of soldiers plus millions of workers laboring to prepare for war. Yet working for peace is... well, nobody's job. We scoff at the task.

Yet how many billions will we spend on a missile defense shield that all the experts say is unlikely to ever work, because we are willing to hope it MIGHT?

For location, I vote for Cyprus. It's middle eastern, but it's not, really... and Cyprus doesn't offend anyone (except Turkey, when they decide they want another piece of it.) Besides, the Cypriot economy could use a boost.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 05:57 PM

Well, Teribus, I'm so proud of you that, well, I'd..... (Ahhh, Bobert, you wouldn't really do that...) Okay, T, let just leave it that Iz mighty proud of you. I mean, yeah, nice bit of work you did up there. Must have taken you hours. And I love the out line form and the countries you included and even tghe Palestinians being included.

Now, gotta just ask one more favor. Have a little *faith*. Yeah, you say this peace stuff won't work but that's where we differ. You think that because of the Oslo agreements and the Camp David meetings between the Isrealis and the Palestinians didn't bring about the solutions we wanted that we ought to just throw up out hands in defeat.

Well, as you might have guessed. I don't. I think when we mix in the fact the the US is clearly the world's remaining Super power, with the post 9/11 mind set that the world is ready for the US to step forward be the catalyst in bringing about new solutions to old problems. This is where we differ. I think of peaceful solutions and you don't.

But, hey, you are part of the way there and I am very serious in praising the bulk of the work you put into your ealier post.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 05:22 PM

kissing the feet of the aggressor is not any sort of answer

True enough. Of course, which one that would be, in the circumstances of a "premptive strike", is not a wholly straightforward matter to determine.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 05:20 PM

I expect Saddam is thinking the exact same thing. He's not the one threatening war, after all.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 05:08 PM

There is no good solution to this unpleasant conflict, but kissing the feet of the aggressor is not any sort of answer. Tolerance is all very well but, like moderation, it can be taken to extremes.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 05:07 PM

Bobert, I'm getting a bit concerned for you! Teribus and Troll are a bit difficult to handle, aren't they? :>) You come up with all these creative ideas, and they keep picking them apart. Give me a hmmmmmmm, okay?

DougR (grin)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 04:26 PM

So let the inspectors back in, and stop playing silly buggers. Anyone who tries to stop them going in is no friend of anyone, whether he's an Iraqi dictator, or a White House resident.

"Thwart Off!"

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 01:45 PM

Hi there, Guest Forum Lurker,

If I may take your points and questions in order:

"We cannot assume that the Iraqi people will rise up against Saddam, or even that they will not fight as hard as the military."

In prospect you could well be correct. But in the light of past events the situation could be evaluated as follows:
The Americans have been financing and assisting dissaffected groups within Iraq and in neighbouring countries. My best bet would be that a group within the Ba'ath Party will get rid of Saddam Hussein, and that requires no uprising on the part of the people. Saddam Hussein sets great store by remaining in power - so does the Ba'ath Party. The Iraqi military did not fight hard the last time, the aerial bombardment they were subjected to completely shattered their morale. I do not believe that they will stand this time - If there is a this time. They could dissappear into the civilian population but if they do that they will be doing so to desert - the bulk of Saddam's forces are conscripts and don't really want to be there in the first place. In doing that they cede the countryside to the UN forces as long as there is clear understanding that this a "hearts and minds" operation, support for Saddam Hussein will diminish, more rapidly in some places than in others. The RG, SRG & FS units are different, they have received preferential treatment, while the general populace and regular army have suffered. The SRG and FS are internal security units whose principal duties are to protect Saddam Hussein from his own people, I do not believe that there is any love lost between the men in those units and the population they have terrorised for the last ten years.

"To use the tired example of Stalingrad, the civilians fought for Stalin, a dictator as bad or worse as Hussein, because they would rather deal with him than the invading dictator."

This is not the same type of conflict, in Moscow, Leningrad and in Stalingrad, there were no civilians - everybody served - but they were not fighting for Stalin - even the Communists were not naive enough to try and make the population believe that - their rallying cry in those days was "Rodina!!" - For Mother Russia, not for Communism, not for Stalin.

"Teribus, you say that "the Iraqis" are being given every chance to comply; if you hold them all responsible for the refusal, then they will all fight to support that decision."

In saying the Iraqis, I meant the Iraqi Authorities, I apologise for my phraseology.

"The fact is that we still have no proof that Saddam has or is developing nuclear weapons or intends to use them."

What we do know is that the Iraqi Government did not fully comply with the UNSC Resolutions resulting from negotiations at the end of "Desert Storm". The UNSCOM inspections were hindered and that a deception programme was undertaken by the Iraqi Authorities. From their reports, from reports of defectors, from aerial and satellite photography signs of activity and reconstruction work is evident at sites formerly associated with Iraq's WMD programme. Since 1958 Iraq has embarked on hostile expansionist campaigns on four occassions. Saddam Hussein has vowed to annihilate the State of Israel. All of which does not constitute proof - but it would be irresponsible to ignore those factors in making any assessment of the situation.

"The United States has engaged in an offensive war within the last year, though we did not bother to declare it;"

The offensive war you refer to; I take to mean the war in Afghanistan, although it could just as well refer to the war against terrorism. Once the link between the events of 11th September, 2001 and Al-Qaeda was established, the Taliban Government in Afghanistan were asked to hand over Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda personnel in Afghanistan, they were given numerous opportunities to do this and they refused. The legitimacy of the Taliban Regime was in dispute and the United States of America assisted the Northern Alliance opposition - there was no American invasion of Afghanistan.

"Hussein has not taken any military action against his neighbors in a decade, and never against America."

I mentioned four occassions on which Iraq has threatened its neighbours since 1958, they were in 1961, 1980 and 1991. As you state Iraq has not taken any military action against its neighbours in a decade, purely because Saddam Hussein has been denied the opportunity to do so, having been successfully expelled from Kuwait. Due to his non-compliance with the requirements stated in the UNSC resoultions and interference with the UNSCOM inspection teams, sanctions were imposed. This meant that Saddam Hussein could not make good the Iraqi losses in conventional military hardwear it is all too obvious - but development of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons can be hidden, we've just had a very good instance of this in North Korea. If Saddam Hussein is only interested in defending his country, why are there good indications of rocket engine testing facilities that are larger than any Iraq has had before.

While Iraq has never taken military action against America, Saddam Hussein has threatened American allies and interests in the region.

"We will be the aggressors if we initiate this "regime change", and we need to be sure of our motivations before we do so."

What transpires, at the moment, is entirely in the hands of the Iraqi Government and the Ba'ath Party. They have made very clear statements regard their not having any WMD in Iraq. They invited the UNMOVIC Teams to return to the country unconditionally, stating that the personnel comprising those teams may carry out their inspections without let or hinderance enjoying the full co-operation of the Iraqi Authorities and military - lets see what happens.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 01:44 PM

Teribus, A friendly word of advice. Dont argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience....They are not interested in debate, they merely wish to beat you into submission. This is the thread that never ends.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 01:25 PM

"Point 1
No-one is advocating the slaughter of Iraqi civilians. The Iraqi's are being offered every opportunity to ensure that that does not happen - all they have to do is comply with what they signed up to do back in 1991."

Because making suggestions like blowing up an apartment building that may (or may not) be harboring combatants is, indeed, advocating the slaughter of civilian Iraqis for political gain. You can wrap in in rhetoric, but it is a choice to deliberately kill civilians in order to kill combatants.

While the military always talks about minimizing civilian casualties -- and may even mean it -- choosing to attack a country is choosing to kill civilians.

Imagine the horror that Americans would feel if we engaged in war with Iraq, and Iraq detonated a nuclear or biological device in Washington DC. How quickly we would scream about the innocents slaughtered. Yet, they would simply respond that they were inadvertant casualities of war -- they were only seeking to destroy the military targets in Washington DC, i.e. the government.

"Point 2
The attainment of what political ends were being sought on 19th April 1995 and on 11th September 2001?"

We'll ignore McVeigh for a moment.

9/11 had everything to do with political motives. In choosing to commit the act of destroying American buildings, the Al Qaida were attacking what they perceived as a threat -- US domination of Muslim countries, and American citizens and tax-payers who support military presence there. Whether you agree with that assessment or not, it has the same moral and ethical ramifications as the idea of a pre-emptive strike against Iraq when we KNOW that non-combatants will die by the thousands, just as they did in the Gulf War and in Afghanistan.

People who support attacking Iraq may feel that their cause is just and morally superior. The Israelis think so, when they destroy the homes of families with military tanks. Hamas thinks so, when they send young men with bombs strapped to their bodies to kill families on buses. Al Qaida thought so, when they sent men to fly planes into buildings.

Justifying war because "we are right and they are wrong" only serves to perpetuate war.

And while you may believe your cause is just -- how does that make you (or us) morally superior to someone like Al Qaidi who also believes that their cause is just?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 12:59 PM

"I choose not to engage in personal attack; it serves no good purpose, converts no one, lowers the general level of the discussion, and lessens my standing in the world of ideas."

Well, that post did read a little bit like a personal attack. But I agree wholly with the point you make there. That kind of thing is a bit like tipping up the chessboard instead of making the next move. Or getting your opponent to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 12:30 PM

From Bobert Productions

The Emergency Middle East Peace Summit

Basic Scipt Notes:

"I'll go on record once again of saying that if I were the President, I'd have called for an Emergency Middle East Peace Summit, used that drum beating PR money on pursuading full participation and more PR money to get leaders to feel like they were part of something historic and not adjorn the danged thing until there was an inclusive comprehensive plan in place, which involved UN inspectors and peace keepers."

That was Bobert's proposal - Kinda sounds good doesn't it? Cosy, so simple, guaranteed not to fail!! never been tried before???. Well not according to Bobert (Oslo, Camp David and a few more besides, never really happened).

Who do we invite Bobert?
More important who is likely to come?
Who is going to stay once they all know the full list of attendees?

The Prospective Attendees/Delegates:

Group 1 - Front Line States
a) Israel
b) Egypt
c) Palestinian Authority
d) Jordan
e) Syria
f) Lebanon

Group 2 - States Associated
a) Libya
b) Iraq
c) Iran
d) Saudi Arabia
e) Turkey
f) Kuwait
g) Bahrain
h) Qatar
i) Doha
j) Dubai
k) Sharjah
l) Oman
m) Yemen

Group 3 - The Ethnics
a) Armenians
b) Kurds (Turkish, Iraqi & Iranian)
c) Iraqi Shi'ites
d) Lebanese Falangists
e) Palestinians outwith Gaza & the West bank

Group 4 - UNSC Permanent Members
a) France
b) Russia
c) China
d) United States of America
e) United Kingdom

Location:
To be advised - maybe Norway - they liked it there the last time - but weather tends to be a bit iffy and Norway is busy with the Tamil Tigers at the moment.

Protocol:

1. Who is going to Chair this Summit? - must be aceptable to all - No Bobert America could not fulfil this role - question of impartiality.

2. Who is going to sit next whom? - should take about a couple of years to work that out.

3. Who sets the agenda and order of business?

4. Who acts as mediator?


Possible Agenda Items:

1. Recognition of the Sovereignty of the State of Israel

2. Recognition of the Sovereignty of a seperate Palestinian State

3. Removal of Post 1967 Israeli Settlements from the Occupied Territories

4. Withdrawal of Israel from the Golan Heights

5. Withdrawal of Syrian Forces from the Lebanon

6. Riparian Rights vis-a-vis Israel and Lebanon; Israel and Jordan; Israel and Syria; Turkey and Iraq.

7. Abandonment of support for Terrorist Organisations

8. Human Rights issues throughout the region on a country by country basis, guaranteeing the rights of ethnic/religious groups within each country, and the right by referenda for the establishment of independent states or homelands if desired by those religious or ethnic groups.

9. Declaration renouncing development and use of weapons of mass destruction.

10. Creation of a non-aggression/mutual defence pact between all countries in the region.

11. Recognition of all international water-ways.

Obviously there could be more, the above list is by no means comprehensive - but there are no real "show-stoppers" there are there Bobert?. After they've decided who sits where, Bobert - it would be all done and dusted in a fore-noon - luncheon anyone??.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 11:16 AM

We cannot assume that the Iraqi people will rise up against Saddam, or even that they will not fight as hard as the military. To use the tired example of Stalingrad, the civilians fought for Stalin, a dictator as bad or worse as Hussein, because they would rather deal with him than the invading dictator. Teribus, you say that "the Iraqis" are being given every chance to comply; if you hold them all responsible for the refusal, then they will all fight to support that decision. The fact is that we still have no proof that Saddam has or is developing nuclear weapons or intends to use them. The United States has engaged in an offensive war within the last year, though we did not bother to declare it; Hussein has not taken any military action against his neighbors in a decade, and never against America. We will be the aggressors if we initiate this "regime change", and we need to be sure of our motivations before we do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Troll
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 08:55 AM

Bobert' I have given reasons why I think your ideas won't work. Your refutations have consisted of Ad Hominem attacks. Nowhere have you addressed the points -negative though you deem them- that I have made in refutation of your ideas.
You seem to think that, because your "cause is just and God is on your side", that any disagreement automatically denotes a severely lessened mental capacity. You may attack and villify me personally until hell freezes over and it will not add one iota of legitimacy to your position.
If I cannot come up with what I consider to be good arguments to refute what I disagree with, I hope that I have enough sense to keep my mouth shut.
I choose not to engage in personal attack; it serves no good purpose, converts no one, lowers the general level of the discussion, and lessens my standing in the world of ideas.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 08:22 AM

Yes, peace is a "convoluted" concept for folks with out the proper wiring upgrades, GUEST and teri-trolls.

If you will go back, I have outlined the components of the "Emergency Middle East Peace Summit" so there is no reason, becuase someone has not followed this thread to keep bringing up the rear.

And the suggestions that I have made are "concrete" in their nature and very much achievable in a post 9/11 world. Some folks here think that the world politics just stay in thye hampster's wheel and and the only thing they can see is more inside of the wheel ahead of them. Yeah, they write one *position paper* after another but bottom line... these are all more of the same. Other than "Bobert's doesn't have any ideas" which is plainly a falsehood or "Bobert's ideas won't work" they have very little elese to say that is based squarely on a focus in the rear view mirror.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 07:27 AM

"a declared war..." I thought that the idea of actually declaring war (except as a metaphor) was considered terribly old hat.

Not that I can see that a formal declaration of war makes much difference when it comes to the morality of saying "We will kill every single one of you until you stop doing what we don't want and do what we want - starting with all the people in this plane/building/city, to show that we mean what we say."

That's terrorism. To quote the definition in the dictionary I've just taken off my shelf: "Method of government by inspiring terror by acts of brutality and savagery".

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 06:56 AM

A mute point, but no-one is targeting Iraqi civilians directly. US armed forces and their allies will attack legitimate military targets only. Yes, some civilians will become casualties because they are directly used as sheilds or from proximity to military targets; but they will not be turned into weapons to acheive political gains. Unfortunately, non of this will change Boberts convoluted brain because he is a. Inacpable of rational thought, and b. dont confuse him with facts his mind is already made up.

Teribus. A well thought, and nicely put debate. Sometimes one finds a gem amongst the coal which makes reading these threads worthwhile at times.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 06:41 AM

Bobert,

Thanks for the continued stream of pure waffle and vague generalisation - no concrete ideas, no suggested means to any realistic solutions.

By the way don't worry about creating lots more Osama's - there are already enough of them and none of them require any justification for their actions. They are against you because you live the life you do - with new and improved methods of communication and free access to uncensored information, the way of life they hold so dear and by which they control the people they regard as their power base, is threatened, so they vilify what they see as the source of that threat and direct their "warriors" against it - they have no goals, they have no aims.

The model by the way Bobert only held good in so much that you had a group of people out-numbered by 17 to 1, in a confined area. The bulk of the number do not want to be there and have no particular affinity with armed men holding them (remember your assessment was that the RG, SRG & FS personnel would treat the population of Baghdad as "shields" or hostages). Your prediction was of countless thousands of US "boys" coming home in C-5's in body bags - how many casualties did the Russian Security Forces suffer Bobert.

Now the variances to the model. The hostages are not inside one building but a number of buildings, the population out-number the RG, SRG & FS personnel, not by 17:1 but by 30:1. To fight they will have to keep one eye on their hostages and the other on the troops coming in. That reduces their effectiveness to fifty percent without a shot being fired. They also have to sleep and eat. I don't think all that many will want to die, either hostages or Saddam's lads - they didn't last time, the same was true in Kabul and Khandahar, and these were Osama's proteges. Oh yeah, "We wish for death, as you wish for life" - they've yet to prove it in any way shape or form as an armed force confronted with an armed force - its a great deal easier against soft targets.

Now NicoleC's good question Bobert - not so good really:

"I'm curious how many of you who are advocating the slaughter of Iraqi civilians to achieve political ends were upset when American civilians were slaughtered to achieve political ends on April 19, 1995 or September 11, 2001?"

Point 1
No-one is advocating the slaughter of Iraqi civilians. The Iraqi's are being offered every opportunity to ensure that that does not happen - all they have to do is comply with what they signed up to do back in 1991.

Point 2
The attainment of what political ends were being sought on 19th April 1995 and on 11th September 2001?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Oct 02 - 08:38 PM

You won't get a direct answer on that one, Nicole, and you can take that to thge bank. But darned good question!

Oh yeah, the teri-trolls will say, "War is Hell" then they'll go right back to beating their drums.... Hmmmmmm?

But darned good question and I'd like a straight answer to it my own self....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 28 Oct 02 - 08:02 PM

I'm curious how many of you who are advocating the slaughter of Iraqi civilians to achieve political ends were upset when American civilians were slaughtered to achieve political ends on April 19, 1995 or September 11, 2001?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Oct 02 - 07:37 PM

Like I've said over and over. You guys wouldn't know a new idea if it knocked on your door wearing nuthin but pasties. You're too steeped in the past to look toward anything but it. Doesn't it get a pain trying to stear mankind into the future with your focua so locked onto the rear view mirror?

Yeah, its been a long, long time since Americans were welcome in Iraq, Iran or Cuba. But there was a time when we were welcome and then weren't and then were... We swapped alliances faster than a bus station whore swapped glances at potential Johns. Iran, Iraq, no, Iran, no, Iraq... I am suggesting that we have become so distrustfull by out actions which have been to either divide and conquear or to protect the flow of oil into the US, that it is the the US the needs a facelifting. The old crap ain't workin'.

Oh sure, we can go blow up some folks and manipulate the survivors into standing before cameras like monkeys telling the world just how great we are (ahhh, for not killing that particular monkey...)but you can bet that in doing so you are gonna get another generation of Osamas, but you drum beaters don't qutie get that...

No, the US has never done what I have suggested. Never! Nor will it! Why? Because it doesn't play too well with the John Wayne, redneck, testostrone driven way that the US like to *rule* its subjects rather than *lead*. Problem is that rulers are resented.

And thieves and thugs are resented and the ruling regime in D.C. is comprised of both. You don't want to hear about you guy stealing the anything? Tough! Then he ought to quit and give back what was strolen. Heck, thats the way it is in a land of laws. The thievs ain't sposed to be able to keep the booty. Do I want Al Gore to be president? Well, not particularly btu *he did win*, like it or not.

But back to Junior's *war*. Ahh, Teribus, the "Moscow Model" that you plan on unleashing in Bagdad is looking even worse. Seems that the good guys killed off about 20% of the civilians. Now you're up to about 800,000 dead Iraqi civilian deaths to explain...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 28 Oct 02 - 03:20 PM

Teribus, Troll: Hear, hear!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Oct 02 - 10:06 AM

Bobert,

If any new ideas were forthcoming I would be only too happy to consider them - so far there have been none - heard a great deal of noise about how GWB "stole" the last election, heard a whole load of belly-aching about how bad things are domestically in the US.

What you imagine are ideas, boils down to unrealistic claptrap, airy-fairy notions without foundation, reason or substance - and that you propose to put forward as a solution for solving one of the most complex problems facing the world today.

As I personally do not hate anyone, the relevance of the John Lennon quote escapes me. And Bobert your comment , "If Jesus, or Mohammed, of Jimmy Carter, or Paul Wellstone, or Jimmy Carter (Were there two of them??), et al, were sitting in the White House we'd be getting a different story." - well Bobert - They ain't, nor are they likely to be within the foreseeable future - Al Gore isn't going to be there either - get used to it. The guy in the hot seat at the moment is doing a pretty good job so far.

America "steals" it's oil???? News to me and the rest of the world Bobert - please provide details. As far as I am aware oil is sold by the barrel (price normally expressed in US$) depending on grade and on which market it is sold.

It's your war Bobert ("He's a-goin'to do it!!!, etc, etc.) - Well Bobert - He ain't done anything yet - HAS HE???

As for the impassioned:

"And I'd guarentee you that if the US had a foriegn policy that was (NOT) driven by greed (WONDERFUL), a foriegn policy that was inclusive (THEY NORMALLY ARE, IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO), a foriegn policy that put peaceful coexhisitence as its priority (MASTERFUL - THE WORLD HAS BEEN SAVED FROM THE RAVAGES OF WORLD WAR SINCE 1945), that we'(D) have lots of Americnas in Iraq, and Iran, and in Cuba, and in North Korea and every other place that troll and Teribus have on their *hit wish list*."

Tell me Bobert, what would all these Americnas (?) be doing in all these places?? Why would they be there??? If memory serves me correctly, there used to be Americans in Iran and Cuba, but they were asked to leave. What makes you think that they would be welcomed back with open arms now?

Speaking for myself I do not have a "hit wish list" (Don't think Troll has one either, his posts, and the thoughts contained therein, tend to be based on logic and a sense of reality)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Oct 02 - 09:07 AM

GUEST is absolutely right, teribus, In the words of John Lennon I "won't listen to minds that hate".

And no, there has never been an "Emergency Middle East Summit" where the US pulls out all the PR stops that's it has pulled out to sell yours and Juniors war.

You folks are the ones who won't listen to new ideas. You folks are the ones that dismiss *possibilities* in the favor of repeating failed policies. You folks are the *students of war* because it is comfortable for you. You folks are the ones who enevitably will be partly responsible for the deaths from the upcoming war because you didn't open your minds long enough to explore any other options.

Well, that blood will not be on my hands, nor will it be on the hands of millions of folks who, like me, see possibilities where you all see only impossibilities.

I'd guarentee in Jesus, or Mohammed, of Jimmy Carter, or Paul Wellstone, or Jimmy Carter, et al, were sitting in the White House we'd be getting a different story.

And I'd guarentee you that if the US had a foriegn policy that was driven by greed, a foriegn policy that was inclusive, a foriegn policy that put peaceful coexhisitence as its priority, that we's have lots of Americnas in Iraq, and Iran, and in Cuba, and in North Korea and every other place that troll and Teribus have on their *hit wish list*.

It comes down to whats most important. Stealing folks resources or payin' for them. Henry Kissinger said it all about stealing when he said something along the lines of "Oil can not be left to the Arabs to control". Well, if one follows that logic, which is based on stealing folks stuff then I guess there is no other way to do it than to blow up some of their folks. Armed robbery! I'd rather trade them food and things that the US can produce that will enhance their lives so that we won't have to worry about the future Osomas, thank you..

Peace

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Troll
Date: 28 Oct 02 - 08:59 AM

Hitler made the destruction of Stalingrad a personal thing. If he could destroy Stalins name-city he thought that he would destroy the Russians will to resist. He was wrong. The winter and over-extended supply lines did his effort in.
At Leningrad, the dogged defense of the citizens coupled with the difficult terrain surrounding Leningrad finally lost the battle for Hitler.
I assume that that's what you were talking about, Kevin and I'm afraid I can't agree with you. These are different times and the equipment and tactics are not the same.
As far as comparing the hi-jackers of September 11 to what MAY be required in a declared war... I had thought better of you but I guess that any comparrison - no matter how unjust-is allowable to make your point.
The end justifies the means.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Oct 02 - 06:26 AM

The Nazis tried it troll's way too. Didn't work for them.

Look at it another way - that was what the hi-jackers of September 11th did as well. People turn into their enemies.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Oct 02 - 06:12 AM

Teribus. You are wasting your energy trying to educate Bobert, he isnt listening...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Oct 02 - 02:22 AM

Bobert,

How many Middle East Peace Summits have there been. The only time any real advance was made came about as a result of the cessation of hostilities in 1973. The diplomatic effort and talks that followed only succeeded because they were conducted as bi-lateral talks between Israel and individual front line states.

The Saudis have proposed a peace plan that would appear to be acceptable and workable, the one thing that will prevent that plan working is the continuing stance of the Iraqi Ba'ath Party with regard to Israel. Iran also voices the same official line with regard to Israel, it funds Palestinian resistance but is not developing weapons to strike Israel direct, Iraq is - or so many believe.

For the sake of discussion, lets go down the road you suggest.

1. America concedes that no new UN resolution is required and the weapons inspectors return to Iraq on exactly the same terms as before.

2. Their initial report should then be presented to the UNSC at the beginning of March 2003.

3. Should the Iraq authorities hinder the efforts of the inspection teams within that period, then the weapons inspectors are withdrawn and the UNSC return to the table to discuss the matter - what has changed? what will they know then that they do not already know now?

4. The debate will no doubt go round in circles for months, during which time Saddam Hussein will appear to look more and more the victor, having successfully faced down the United Nations and the USA.

5. As the UN inspection teams did not find anything, Iraq, quite rightly, will call for an end to UN sanctions. What arguement can anyone put forward for denying that motion?

6. With sanctions gone, no weapons inspectors in place, SH can proceed with whatever programme he wants. Iran will re-arm in order to protect itself, the position of both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia will be increasingly threatened. The UN having proved itself as toothless as its predecessor can be totally ignored. Who then will act? and on what mandate?

7. Israel will come under more pressure, as will the governments of the front line Arab states. America will be able to support Israel, but will not be able to do anything about the situation elsewhere in the region. Because by this time Iraq, the leader of the Arab world, will be too strong to be intimidated by the threat of force. You then may have all the Middle East Peace Summits that you want - they will not accomplish anything, because the man driving the position from the Arab side of the table is only interested in a Middle East that does not contain an Israeli state.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Troll
Date: 28 Oct 02 - 02:21 AM

How about a guarantee that all parties concerned would keep their word? Also, if you think that Saddam OR the Iraqi people would agree to foreign troops- especially Americans- on their soil, guess again.
It sounds great IF all parties concerned are reasonable but some of them aren't and no one knows just which ones will be unreasonalbe first.
For one thing, I don't believe that Saddam would (a) leave the country to attend a summit and (b) sit at a conference table with the Israelis.The same could apply to other countries.
It's a nice thought, Bobert, but, for the reasons I have named, I don't think it would stand a snowball in hells chance of working; not if you kept every PR firm in the country busy for the next twenty years.
I don't think the countries of the Middle East want peace on any terms that we and our allies could accept. I think they want us to get the hell out of the region entirely and let them do whatever they wish without hinderance from the rest of the world. Which would be fine except that it would lead to the destruction of our ally, the State of Israel and a probable nuclear war in the region.
Because, believe me, the Jews will not march meekly to their deaths this time. If their destruction is imminent, they will fire their missiles and take as many of the Arab states with them as they can. Those missiles are in place and targeted on the major cities of the Arab world.
We have to be there if only to try and prevent that from happening.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Oct 02 - 11:56 PM

Yeah, like I have pointed out before on many occasions, an *intellegent* president would cal for an "Emergency Middle East Peace Summit", us the PR follks to make peace fashionable, get everyone involved (without exception) and lock the danged doors until all the issues ahve been dealt with. Then, as follow up, lots of Americans will be in Iraq as partr of the settlement and can keep an eye out on Saddam. The Isreali/Palestinian issue will also be solved or at least some goals and time tables set. The problems that the Saudi's have with their more radical elements will be addressed. Yeah, bottom line, lts of stuff will be *talked* about. Beats the heck out of messy wars that just leave scars and resentments. AND, makes Junior look less stupid, to boot. What more could the US ask for?

Bobert