 sj |
||
|
||
BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 28 Jan 08 - 09:54 PM "Bush hater's club." Where would you guys be without your collection of self-labeled pigeon-holes? I don't at all mind you fellows "winning" the argument in this thread (which appears to be the way you conceive of it) just as long as my guy wins the next election. Ta-ta. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Homey Date: 28 Jan 08 - 10:00 PM From the New York Times: Two Democratic senators called on Gov. George W. Bush to release his full military record to resolve doubts raised by a newspaper about whether he reported for required drills when he was in the Air National Guard in 1972 and 1973. But a review of records by The New York Times indicated that some of those concerns may be unfounded. Documents reviewed by The Times showed that Mr. Bush served in at least 9 of the 17 months in question. Dan Bartlett, a Bush spokesman, said that Mr. Bush had fulfilled his military obligations ''or he would not have been honorably discharged.'' The senators, Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii and Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, both Medal of Honor winners, were responding, in a telephone conference with reporters, to an article in The Boston Globe on Tuesday. The article, citing military records for Mr. Bush, raised questions about whether Mr. Bush performed any duty from April 1972 until September 1973, when he entered Harvard Business School. A review by The Times showed that after a seven-month gap, he appeared for duty in late November 1972 at least through July 1973. Mr. Bush was assigned to the 111th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron at Ellington Air Force Base near Houston, from November 1969, last flying there on April 16, 1972. In a report dated May 26, 1972, his commander, Maj. William D. Harris Jr., said Mr. Bush had ''recently accepted the position as campaign manager for a candidate for the United States Senate.'' Mr. Bush went to work for Winton M. Blount a few days after Mr. Blount won the Republican primary in Alabama on May 2, 1972. From that time until after the election that November, Mr. Bush did not appear for duty, even after being told to report for training with an Alabama unit in October and November. Mr. Bartlett said Mr. Bush had been too busy with the campaign to report in those months but made up the time later. On Sept. 5, 1972, Mr. Bush asked his Texas Air National Guard superiors for assignment to the 187th Tactical Recon Group in Montgomery ''for the months of September, October and November.'' Capt. Kenneth K. Lott, chief of the personnel branch of the 187th Tactical Recon Group, told the Texas commanders that training in September had already occurred but that more training was scheduled for Oct. 7 and 8 and Nov. 4 and 5. But Mr. Bartlett said Mr. Bush did not serve on those dates because he was involved in the Senate campaign, but he made up those dates later. Colonel Turnipseed, who retired as a general, said in an interview that regulations allowed Guard members to miss duty as long as it was made up within the same quarter. Mr. Bartlett pointed to a document in Mr. Bush's military records that showed credit for four days of duty ending Nov. 29 and for eight days ending Dec. 14, 1972, and, after he moved back to Houston, on dates in January, April and May. The May dates correlated with orders sent to Mr. Bush at his Houston apartment on April 23, 1973, in which Sgt. Billy B. Lamar told Mr. Bush to report for active duty on May 1-3 and May 8-10. Another document showed that Mr. Bush served at various times from May 29, 1973, through July 30, 1973, a period of time questioned by The Globe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Homey Date: 28 Jan 08 - 10:08 PM I don't see any connection to any election here. You are indeed seething in hatred. Do you also believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy? Boston Globe admits Bush served more than the minimum time, and was a fine pilot: Those who trained and flew with Bush, until he gave up flying in April 1972, said he was among the best pilots in the 111th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron. In the 22-month period between the end of his flight training and his move to Alabama, Bush logged numerous hours of duty, well above the minimum requirements for so-called ''weekend warriors.'' Indeed, in the first four years of his six-year commitment, Bush spent the equivalent of 21 months on active duty, including 18 months in flight school. His Democratic opponent, Vice President Al Gore, who enlisted in the Army for two years and spent five months in Vietnam, logged only about a month more active service, since he won an early release from service. Bush flew with the 111th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron, which was attached to the 147th Fighter Wing, based in Houston, Texas. While Bush's unit never got called to Vietnam, the 147th was. From 1968 through 1970, pilots from the 147th participated in operation "Palace Alert" and served in Southeast Asia during the height of the Vietnam War. The 147th came off runway alert on Jan. 1, 1970 to start a new mission of training all F-102 pilots in the United States for the Air National Guard. Bush enlisted as an Airman Basic in the 147th Fighter-Interceptor Group at Ellington Air Force Base, Houston, on May 28, 1968 - at a time when the 147th was actively participating in combat in Vietnam. However, one can not train overnight to be a pilot. Bush completed basic flight training and then, from December 1969 through June 27, 1970, he was training full-time at Ellington to be an F-102 pilot. Bush volunteered to serve in a unit at the very moment it was seeing combat in Vietnam, and only a restructuring of the unit's mission before he completed his flight training made it unlikely he would fly in combat. And he was never AWOL - he completed his required service and even served beyond the minimum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Donuel Date: 28 Jan 08 - 10:14 PM Its like Homey stepped right out of 2003 and is ready to destroy Saddam's WMD. Whats he gonna say next, love it or leave it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 28 Jan 08 - 10:42 PM "You are indeed seething in hatred." You know that for a fact, Homey? A lively imagination is a joy forever. No, I don't hate anyone, and I'm far too relaxed at the moment to "seeth." As I have said above, Bush is a small man in an office that is much too big for him, and this leaves him vulnerable to being manipulated by forces he doesn't understand. But Dick Cheney does. Actually, I feel sorry for Bush. He's in way over his head, and history is not going to be kind to him. And it's pretty obvious from some of the things that he's said and done within recent months that he is dimly aware of this and is a bit concerned. By the way, when I refered to "winning" the argument in this thread," I'm not acknowledging that you guys have won anything, unless it's contest for sheer endurance and pointless repetition. I can't see any point in wasting any more time here when, politically, I can spend my time more productively working for my favorite candidates. It's about 7:30 p.m. here, so I'm going to sign off and watch a little television. Nothing heavy. A comedy on CBS and a nature show on PBS, then a bit of news and a good night's sleep. Primary elections are coming up in this state, so tomorrow I'm going in to lend a hand. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Homey Date: 28 Jan 08 - 10:46 PM I hate to disappoint you but I have not said anything about WMD's I did however ask it Iran was a threat to world peace and peace in the Middle East. And I asked what should be done about Iran. However this thread has degenerated in to a hate Bush fest. When I point out discrepancies and the underlying character defects, I get labeled a Bush supporter. Some people can't stand it when someone suggests they are wrong. They get real arrogant and sarcastic to try to prove they are right as always. Colonel Staudt told the LA Times that "Nobody did anything for him. There was no goddamn influence on his behalf. Neither his daddy nor anybody else got him into the Guard." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Homey Date: 28 Jan 08 - 11:23 PM Don: You could be right about Bush. I don't think he is all that great but all this rhetoric and propaganda does not prove it. It only serves to throw those who doggedly keep repeating it over and over into question. I think Iran is a threat to peace in the world and the Middle East. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 29 Jan 08 - 03:18 PM George W. Bush called Iraq, Iran, and North Korea an "axis of evil." Then he launched an attack and invaded Iraq. From this, it would not be unreasonable for leaders of Iran and North Korea to assume that one or both of them were next on Bush's list to invade. Knowing that they do not have sufficient conventional military forces to defend themselves from an invasion by the United States, it is perfectly understandable that they might want to acquire nuclear weapons and use the threat of them as a deterrent to such an attack. The leaders of neither country are stupid enough to think that they could possibly survive if they were to launch a pre-emptive nuclear attack on the United States. But they may very well feel that if they have nuclear weapons, that fact might make Bush, or any future leader of the United States, think twice about invading them. Were it not for the threat that Bush's "axis of evil" speech implied, they quite probably would not have even considered adding nuclear weapons to their arsenals. If Bush considers Iran's alleged efforts to acquire nuclear weapons, which, incidentally, is not established as true, to be a threat to the United States, it is a threat that was caused by Bush himself. As it stands now, North Korea has pledged to give up the few nuclear weapons it has and is allowing inspectors in. Iran claims that they want to use nuclear energy for strictly peaceful purposes, and have made an agreement with Russia to supply them with the nuclear fuel they need for this purpose, then reclaim it when depleted. Under Russia's supervision, Iran will not need to have the means to enrich the fuel to weapons-grade material, nor will the Russians allow them to do so. These countries constitute a nuclear threat only in the minds of those who believe Bush Administration propaganda. Less swaggering and saber-rattling and a little basic diplomacy would make all the difference in the world, and the Bush Administration has been a complete failure in that department. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST Date: 29 Jan 08 - 04:03 PM "...a burned out 60's style hippie that can't adapt to the modern world so he has a chemical dependency." - Homey This is an attack that points up "the emotional and mental immaturity of the attacker," which Homey also said. I think this is called a double standard. Remember, you can't hold others to a higher standard than you hold for yourself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 29 Jan 08 - 05:19 PM "...a burned out 60's style hippie that can't adapt to the modern world so he has a chemical dependency." - Homey I think he might want to include me in that epithet, but I'm afraid I don't qualify on several counts. I was too young to be a beatnik, too old to be a hippie, I was clean-shaven and had regular haircuts, bathed daily, and never took drugs (with the exception of a recent prescription from my doctor--slight touch of high blood pressure which is not unusual at my age). Nor, as I've said several times here, do I hate Bush. I think he's an incompetent, and considering how history is going to judge him, I almost feel sorry for the silly sod. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 29 Jan 08 - 06:35 PM "George W. Bush called Iraq, Iran, and North Korea an "axis of evil." - (Don Firth) Did he Don? or was that your pals in the press. If you read his speech the "Axis of Evil" consisted of an international terrorist group a rogue state that possesssed WMD and which would be prepared supported international terrorism by supplying them with WMD or WMD technology. Homey is correct, Iran does pose a threat to the peace and stability of the region, as one of the possible candidates to fulfil the role of the rogue state - they are known supporters of Hezbollah and Hamas and their Al-Quds Brigade is tasked with encouraging and aiding the growth of Islamic terrorist movements. The Al-Quds Brigade and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards do not answer to the "Selected" Government of Iran, they answer only to the "Chief Git". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,TIA Date: 29 Jan 08 - 07:25 PM Oh my Gawd you are slippery Teribus. Here is the quote (directly from the speech not from anyone's "pals in the press": *****SOTU, 01/29/2002 ******* "North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens. Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom. Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens, leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections, then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world. States like these and their terrorist allies constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world." ********* Now please tell me who "states like these" is referring to you nincompoop. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 29 Jan 08 - 07:27 PM Nah, Don, I reckon that Old-Dickey-Homey-Guy is probably takin' a shot at me but, hey, he is so dillusssional, who knows???... Sorry you didn't fall into either the beat or hip movements... Actually, truth be known, I was reading beat poetry in the 50's... I love Ferlinghetti and Korso the most... I didn't have mush of a clue what the hell they were talkin' about but I thought they we both real cool... So when the hip thing arrived I was part the way there but... ...according to Dr, King's definition I wasn't a "hippie"... I was a "radical"... I didn't move to the country to a commune... I went to college, did alot of community orgainzing aginst the war and racism and played in a loud rock band... Oh yeah, I also smoked pot... Does that make one a hippie??? If so then half the folks in Page County, Va. today are hippies!?!?!?.... (They're the redneck hippies, Bobertz...) Oh!?!?!.... LOL... Now back at it, Don... I'm takin' a little time off from the Bushites... The brownshirts certainly didn't have anything on out "3 Blind Mice" when it came to beleiving what they were told tyo believe... Hey, look... During my years in social work I learned that arguing with sick people ain't ptoductive... They are too sick for the arguing to make any difference so what's the use??? If just anew one would come along with new arguments, then fine... But it's the same 3 people... Okay, Old Guy morphed into Dickey who has now morphed into Homey but it's the same person... Just different day... Bobert (Ol' Radical) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 29 Jan 08 - 10:57 PM GUEST,TIA beat me to it, Teribus. Yesterday, while listening to a news broadcast regarding Bush's State of the Union speeches, the radio station played excerpts from his previous speeches. I heard Bush say it, loud and clear, with my own two fat, flappin' ears. If you rummage around, you might be able to obtain a recording of Bush's speeches, then you can listen to it for yourself. Your credibility just took a torpedo under the water line, and the fun part is that you fired the torpedo yourself! Jeez, Teribus, get a life!! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 30 Jan 08 - 02:12 AM "GUEST,TIA beat me to it, Teribus. Yesterday, while listening to a news broadcast regarding Bush's State of the Union speeches, the radio station played excerpts from his previous speeches." (Don Firth) You see Don that is the trouble with almost everything you base your opinions on, its all done on what is reported. "a news broadcast regarding Bush's State of the Union speeches, the radio station played excerpts from his previous speeches" Now then Don who got to select those excerpts? and why were those ones chosen? While listening to that broadcast Don did either of those questions flit across your mind? Guest TIA look again, this time preferably reading, the passage you have cut'n'pasted. In each case it is a combination of a state linked to terror in the case of North Korea it is domestic but for the other two: "Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror." "Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror." The references are quite blatant, and I will stand by what I said: "If you read his speech the "Axis of Evil" consisted of an international terrorist group a rogue state that possesssed WMD and which would be prepared supported international terrorism by supplying them with WMD or WMD technology." Because that is what I got from reading the whole speech, not some sound byte extracted from the whole or invented by some journalist or reporter with an agenda all of his own. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,petr Date: 30 Jan 08 - 03:21 AM only the 'decider' could come up with something inane like the 'axis of evil' - with 2 members of said axis Iran and Iraq as avowed enemies. never mind the fact that an axis does not have 3 points.. (Actually it was his speechwriter David Frum -but Bush really liked it had him make some additions like the 'axis' bit..) what a load of rubbish coming out of Teribus.. no attacks from Al Qaeda since 911? sure, if you dont count Bali, Madrid, the London bombings, Casablanca Egypt, Turkey, the various attacks on US bases in Saudi..etc etc.. AlQaeda on the Run with no bases to operate from? well they did have them on the run for a while until they hired Afghan warlords to capture Bin Laden and his crew in Tora Bora - instead of using American troops. The afghans promptly let them go, as did the Pakistanis (the US Ally) who let them cross unopposed into the tribal areas of Pakistan (where AlQaeda originally formed in 1988). Tribal areas, that were never really under Pakistani authority, and now they do as they please. and the Taliban has made a comeback in Afghanistan thanks to the US being pre-occupied in Iraq. the US own intelligence agencies fully admit that AlQaedas recruitment increased and the war in Iraq has become the extremists 'cause celebre' but thats probably too big a word for the decider. the idea that the Bush administration used diplomacy for a settlement with North Korea, (you mean after not talking to them for 4 years and now that Kim has the bomb he gets to keep it?) that agreement? and resorting to the argument above that Saddam was an evil dictator who murdered many of his own people and the world is a better place now that hes gone.. Sure Ill grant that point, although I listened to the war drums in 2002-3 mostly the reasons given for going to war were about WMDs nothing about Saddam being a tyrant. (Which by the bye didnt bother the US in the 80s when they sold him weapons and gave him intelligence while he gassed his own people. ) and why arent we going after all the other tyrants? I guess theres no oil in Zimbabwe. Bush's & Cheneys other legacy - they racked up a debt bigger than all the past administrations, quite an achievement. and Ironically, (or Iranically) the biggest beneficiary of the IRaq war is Iran - Saddam their arch enemy is gone, they have loads of influence in Kurdistan as well as close ties with the Mahdi army and other Shiite militias, and eventually the occupiers will go home. (according to a recent survey most Iraqis think the US troops should leave - also a majority feel US troops are legitimate targets) i think this idea that We own the World pretty much sums it up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 30 Jan 08 - 05:59 AM 9/11 was a culmination of ever more complex operations. The attacks since then have all been crude and very basic. Home made bombs on a train. Anyone could do that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 30 Jan 08 - 10:49 AM "only the 'decider' could come up with something inane like the 'axis of evil' - with 2 members of said axis Iran and Iraq as avowed enemies. never mind the fact that an axis does not have 3 points.." Thanks for coming up with that Guest petr, sort of backs up my take on things on what the President was referring to, i.e. a two point axis of "rogue state" linked to an international terrorist group. North Korea, Iran and Iraq were only named as possible candidates to fulfil the role of "rogue state". Mind you Guest petr probably before your time but the Axis Powers during the Second World War consisted of three countries, that's where the press got it wrong in reporting the Presidents speech and thought that he was talking about an alliance made up between Iraq, Iran and North Korea - as you so aptly point out - bloody ridiculous. Now if I can pick that up and you can pick that up from what has been written, exactly what is wrong with the way they teach basic english comprehension in the good ol' U.S. of A., if indeed that is where Guest TIA is from. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 30 Jan 08 - 01:11 PM Teribus, your desparation is patently obvious. I heard Bush's "axis of evil" speech--the whole speech--the first time he gave it. I also heard it again on the program I mentioned. So I'm not just listening to excerpts carefully selected for their propaganda value, and I'm not as easily deceived as you're trying to imply. YOU are the one who combs through speeches, documents, and news stories to find things you can take out of context to support your viewpoint, and then post them here. Give it up, man! You're making yourself look ridiculous. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 30 Jan 08 - 01:16 PM My desperation Don? I'm not the one trying as best as am able to cling to lies, half-truths, misrepresentations and myths to bolster my arguements. That sort of thing I leave to the likes of yourself, Guest TIA and Bobert. I'll have to check back, but there's not much of Boberts little review list left standing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 30 Jan 08 - 01:47 PM You are indeed a True Believer, Teribus. But a wise man once said, "Believe as you will. But the Facts of Reality do not care what you believe." Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 30 Jan 08 - 03:42 PM For your information: [Our goal] is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.No ambiguity here that I can see. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 30 Jan 08 - 03:56 PM That still might not make it clear enough for Teribus. Let me see if I can make it even clearer for him: [Our goal] is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.Clear enough now? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: TIA Date: 30 Jan 08 - 07:58 PM Oh dear Teribus, my English comprehension is just fine - and I have the transcripts and alphabet soup to back that up. Yours is equally good. I am sure of that (seriously - no sarcasm). The problem is that you take positions, and then desperately cling to them in the face of hurricanes of contrary data. You really should try simply admitting when you have been wrong. It is the only way to actually learn anything. I know this because I have been wrong in the past (and admitted here on Mudcat). It is obvious to all that you have, in this case, been reduced to arguing that black is white regarding the SOTU quote. People will not think less of you for admitting error. In fact, when the error is so blatant, it better preserves your honor to own up to it than to try to spin out of it (humbly spoken from experience - honestly). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 30 Jan 08 - 08:10 PM Just for the record, T-Bird.... My entire list is still intact... You and yer buds took on one, the ANG/AWOL, in any level of depth other than proclamations, denials and woof-woof-woofs and haven't come out too well with that one.... So, go smoke another joint... You haven't begun to make a dent in the list... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 31 Jan 08 - 12:44 AM Now then Don, I know it might be a little bit difficult, but try reading the whole sentence: "States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world." Now if he's only referring to an alliance between Iraq, Iran and North Korea, why mention "their terrorist allies"? "States like these" - Examples given being states such Iraq, Iran or North Korea Rogue State + Terrorist organisation = Axis of Evil Perfectly straightforward Don |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,petr Date: 31 Jan 08 - 12:43 PM or put another way,, 'countries that have absolutely nothing in common - other than they dont like us'. Originally Frum called it the axis of hatred which Bush changed to evil. Of course the wwII reference is intentional, they wouldnt have called it the coalition or alliance of evil. The world war II reference is ironic, my dad who was around to see the Germans march into the Sudety, said - prior to the invasion of Iraq,the US sounded just like the Germans back then. whatever happened to those WMD's? Its easy to see why the NIE report of no-less than 15 Intelligence US agencies was published. To pre-empt Cheney from striking Iran, before the Bush presidency is a lame duck. There was already a steady drumbeat of anti-Iran war propaganda, that took the wind out of their sails. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 31 Jan 08 - 01:42 PM Teribus, one of my areas of study at the University of Washington was English, both literature and composition, so I think I am fairly adept at both reading and writing the English language, and parsing a sentence is no challenge for me. I also studied philosophy in general (an ongoing study), but concentrated especially on the areas of ethics and logic. These are particular fields of interest to me. In addition to this, I worked for many years as a technical writer. Within recent years I have had some seventeen articles on various topics published in regional and national magazines and have nearly completed a book-length work of non-fiction (approximately 100,000 words so far). So I'm pretty well qualified to understand what Bush said (although his command of the English language is high school level at best, and were it not for his speech writers, he would babble incoherently, as we have seen during his press conferences—which is one of a couple of reasons he doesn't hold them anymore; another being that he doesn't like a lot of the pointed questions reporters tend to ask). In the segment of his 2002 State of the Union speech cited, he is referring to Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as an "axis of evil," along with any other country or countries that might ally themselves with those three. You seem to be the one having difficulty with reading comprehension, Teribus. Or, more likely, your reading comprehension is fine, but you simply can't accept the obvious fact that you are so obviously and demonstrably dead wrong. Good Lord, man, get a grip!! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 31 Jan 08 - 02:22 PM Upon re-reading what I just posted above, I would make one small edit. In the last sentence of the second to last paragraph, I have used the words "obvious" and "obviously" too close together, and this tends to read awkwardly as well as being redundant. The sentence in question is: ". . . you simply can't accept the obvious fact that you are so obviously and demonstrably dead wrong."I would delete the "obvious" before "fact" and let the "obviously" a few words later stand, so the sentence would read ". . . you simply can't accept the fact that you are so obviously and demonstrably dead wrong."There. Much better. Perhaps more germane to our current discussion about what Bush actually said than my writing skills is the fact that I have also worked as an editor on a couple of different jobs. I have edited the writings of other technical writers, and while working at a radio station, I edited both news stories and advertising copy. This, in addition to editing my own writing. I would let the last paragraph "Good Lord, man, get a grip!!"stand as is. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 31 Jan 08 - 03:00 PM In which case Don, if you are trying to tell me that the President was saying that the axis of evil is an alliance between Iran, Iraq and North Korea, can you possibly explain why he didn't just say: "These states constitute an axis of evil arming to threaten the peace of the world." But he didn't Don, did he? He said: "States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. Now then Don states like what? Example 1 - "North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens." Example 2 - "Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom." Example 3 - "Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror." "By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred." Rogue State + Terrorist Organisation = Axis of Evil You've obviously been taking money all these years under false pretenses. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 31 Jan 08 - 03:58 PM Obviously (again) Teribus has problems comprehending plain English. I leave it to others who might still be following this discussion to read and judge for themselves. The case rests. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 31 Jan 08 - 05:28 PM Okay, just for the hell of it, let's try it again. "States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world." Okay, Teribus, let's examine what leads up to the sentence in which Bush uses the expression "axis of evil." In the paragraphs leading to it, he spoke of North Korea as a regime that is arming itself with weapons of mass destruction while starving its citizens. Then he says that Iran, another repressive regime, is also arming itself with WMDs. In the third paragraph, he claims that Iraq is flaunting its hostility toward America and supporting terror, while also arming itself with WMDs, and, at the same time, murdering its own citizens. Then—in the crucial sentence, he adds "and their terrorist allies" to the aforementioned list. Remember? North Korea, Iran, and Iraq. And he calls them—all—inclusively—an "axis of evil." By "States like these," who else could he be referring to but North Korea, Iran, and Iraq? Plus any other state that might care to ally itself with North Korea, Iran, and Iraq. Nowhere does he exclude North Korea, Iran, and Iraq. And nowhere does he mention Germany, Russia, Wales, Monaco, or the State of Alabama. What is so difficult for you to understand? Don Firth P. S. As to whether or not I've been taking money under false pretenses (by the way, what other kind are there?), you'd have to take that matter up with a number of satified magazine editors, news directors, radio advertisers, whose work I have edited, and the Bonneville Power Administration, for whom I did technical writing and editing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 31 Jan 08 - 06:40 PM No, Don... T-zer understands English... He just doesn't like believing it if it paints his hero as the crook and warmonger that his hero really is... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Nickhere Date: 31 Jan 08 - 06:59 PM I know this won't be popular, but being the fool I am I'll stick my neck out anyway. there's a good deal of pressure being racked up by Bush etc, over Iran's nuclear programme. But double standards are being applied in the region. UN Resolution 487 passed on 19 June 1981 calls for Israel to put its atomic facilities under IAEA inspection and safeguards, and also for it to pay redress for its contemporary attack on Iraq's atomic facilities (Iraq, as a signatory to the NPT was entitled to pursue its atomic programme for peaceful purposes at that time). The main text here - *Resolution 487 (1981)* /Adopted by the Security Council at its 2288th meeting/ /on 19 June 1981/ / The Security Council,/ / Having considered/ the agenda contained in document S/Agenda/2280, /Having noted/ the contents of the telegram dated 8 June 1981 from the Foreign Minister of Iraq (S/14509), Having heard the statements made to the Council on the subject at its 2280th through 2288th meetings, /Taking note/ of the statement made by the Director-General of the International Atomic Emergency Agency (IAEA) to the Agency's Board of Governors on the subject on 9 June 1981 and his statement to the Council at its 2288th meeting on 19 June 1981, /Further taking note/ of the resolution adopted by the Board of Governors of the IAEA on 12 June 1981 on the "military attack on the Iraq nuclear research centre and its implications for the Agency" (S/14532), /Fully aware/ of the fact that Iraq has been a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons since it came into force in 1970, that in accordance with that Treaty Iraq has accepted IAEA safeguards on all its nuclear activities, and that the Agency has testified that these safeguards have been satisfactorily applied to date, /Noting furthermore/ that Israel has not adhered to the non-proliferation Treaty, /Deeply concerned/ about the danger to international peace and security created by the premeditated Israeli air attack on Iraqi nuclear installations on 7 June 1981, which could at any time explode the situation in the area, with grave consequences for the vital interests of all States, /Considering/ that, under the terms of Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter of the United Nations: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations", 1. /Strongly condemns/ the military attack by Israel in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct; 2. /Calls upon/ Israel to refrain in the future from any such acts or threats thereof; 3. /Further considers/ that the said attack constitutes a serious threat to the entire IAEA safeguards regime which is the foundation of the non-proliferation Treaty; 4. /Fully recognizes/ the inalienable sovereign right of Iraq, and all other States, especially the developing countries, to establish programmes of technological and nuclear development to develop their economy and industry for peaceful purposes in accordance with their present and future needs and consistent with the internationally accepted objectives of preventing nuclear-weapons proliferation; 5. /Calls upon/ Israel urgently to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards; 6. /Considers/ that Iraq is entitled to appropriate redress for the destruction it has suffered, responsibility for which has been acknowledged by Israel; 7. /Requests/ the Secretary-General to keep the Security Council regularly informed of the implementation of this resolution. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 31 Jan 08 - 07:39 PM So much for UN resolutions, nick-ster... Yet, the "3 Blind Mice" stick to the one that Bush rammed down their throats as if it was the resolution of all time??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 01 Feb 08 - 01:03 AM "In the paragraphs leading to it, he spoke of North Korea as a regime that is arming itself with weapons of mass destruction while starving its citizens. Then he says that Iran, another repressive regime, is also arming itself with WMDs. In the third paragraph, he claims that Iraq is flaunting its hostility toward America and supporting terror, while also arming itself with WMDs, and, at the same time, murdering its own citizens." - (Don Firth - Technical Writer) Not quite true is it Don? Regarding the three sentences that you mention, what he said was this: Example 1 - "North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens." Rogue State + mention of its armament programme + its capacity for terror (albeit domestic and internal) Example 2 - "Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom." Rogue State + mention of its armamnent programme + its support of international terrorist organisations Example 3 - "Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens—leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections—then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world." Rogue State + mention of its armament programme + its support of international terrorist organisations. The common thread that was instrumental in the writing of that section of that speech was the threat evaluation carried out immediately post 911 to determine what constituted the greatest threat to the United States of America. Guess what it was Don? A "rogue State" + possession of WMD or active WMD programme + its support of an international terrorist organisation. Iraq, Iran and North Korea were not the only candidate countries, they were only the ones that topped the list. Another that came quite near was Libya again: A "rogue State" + possession of WMD or active WMD programme + its support of an international terrorist organisation. What did Libya do Don? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 01 Feb 08 - 01:13 AM Not wishing to state the obvious Nickhere but in response to your: "UN Resolution 487 passed on 19 June 1981 calls for Israel to put its atomic facilities under IAEA inspection and safeguards, and also for it to pay redress for its contemporary attack on Iraq's atomic facilities (Iraq, as a signatory to the NPT was entitled to pursue its atomic programme for peaceful purposes at that time)." I do not believe that it is within the power or scope of the United Nations to force any country to sign a treaty against its will. Israel's nuclear facilities are perfectly legal, their existance pre-dates any international nuclear agreement by ten years. Anyone thinking that Iraq's nuclear programme was ever purely peaceful is living in cloud cuckoo-land, if anyone wishes to counter that I would advise them to look at the findings of the IAEA and the work they undertook in Iraq immediately after "Desert Storm". What was it again, pursuit of five independent means of enriching Uranium to weapons grade - Hmmmmmmmm - as Bobert would say. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Nickhere Date: 01 Feb 08 - 01:36 AM Iran's nuclear programme is also perfectly legal. If it is supposed to abide by IAEA inspection because of UN Resolutions, then so too should Israel, under Resolution 487. But of course we know there are two sets of laws operating in the region. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 01 Feb 08 - 11:03 AM "Iran's nuclear programme is also perfectly legal. If it is supposed to abide by IAEA inspection because of UN Resolutions, then so too should Israel, under Resolution 487. But of course we know there are two sets of laws operating in the region." - (Nickhere) Now who on earth said that Iran has to abide by IAEA inspection because of UN Resolutions Nickhere? Iran has to abide by IAEA inspections and standards relating to full disclosure and transparency because Iran is a signatory of the 1968 NPT, it has got nothing whatsoever to do with UN Resolutions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 01 Feb 08 - 01:38 PM You shouldn't have skipped your remedial reading classes, Teribus, but I certainly admire your ability to tap-dance. Truly amazing!! I grow bored. Once again, I invite others to read the debate (if they can manage to keep from yawning) and make up their own minds. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 01 Feb 08 - 10:10 PM teribus can twist it any way he likes but that doesn't make Israel the innocent victim. In fact, because Israel seems to have ignored UN resolution 487 it appears that Israel is the 'rogue' nation. Iran is a signatory of the IAEA and Israel is not. Iran continues to meet with and discuss the inspection process. Israel refuses to co-operate with anyone. To continually point the finger at Iran is only a means of deflecting attention away from Israel. It is Israel who threatens peace in the Middle East because they are completely unregulated and have possessed Nuclear weapons for a very long time. I have more trust in those who have a permit to carry a fire arm than those who are carrying a concealed weapon. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 02 Feb 08 - 09:41 AM Oh gosh dianavan, does that statements such as those following didn't really mean anything at all then: • We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand. We shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood. • ... the full restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people. In other words, we aim at the destruction of the State of Israel. The immediate aim: perfection of Arab military might. The national aim: the eradication of Israel. • The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear -- to wipe Israel off the map. The fact that those statements were made at all is bad enough, the fact that those statements were made with three fully mobilised armies camped out on Israel's borders lent a certain "we're only kidding" slant to the rhetoric. Now then dianavan - a question for you - when has Israel ever made any similar statements with regard to its neighbours? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 02 Feb 08 - 10:32 AM Let's have a look at this resolution *Resolution 487 (1981)* /Adopted by the Security Council at its 2288th meeting/ /on 19 June 1981/ / The Security Council,/ / Having considered/ the agenda contained in document S/Agenda/2280, /Having noted/ the contents of the telegram dated 8 June 1981 from the Foreign Minister of Iraq (S/14509), Having heard the statements made to the Council on the subject at its 2280th through 2288th meetings, /Taking note/ of the statement made by the Director-General of the International Atomic Emergency Agency (IAEA) to the Agency's Board of Governors on the subject on 9 June 1981 and his statement to the Council at its 2288th meeting on 19 June 1981, /Further taking note/ of the resolution adopted by the Board of Governors of the IAEA on 12 June 1981 on the "military attack on the Iraq nuclear research centre and its implications for the Agency" (S/14532), /Fully aware/ of the fact that Iraq has been a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons since it came into force in 1970, that in accordance with that Treaty Iraq has accepted IAEA safeguards on all its nuclear activities, and that the Agency has testified that these safeguards have been satisfactorily applied to date, Well with 20 x 20 hindsight and with what was discovered by the IAEA inspectors in 1991 we all now know that that statement was not true. /Noting furthermore/ that Israel has not adhered to the non-proliferation Treaty, Not wishing to state the obvious why does any state have to adhere to the terms and conditions of a treaty to which it is not a signatory? Besides which Israel in many ways has complied with the NPT - it has not proliferated the spread of nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons technology - North Korea has, the USSR has, China has, Pakistan has. /Deeply concerned/ about the danger to international peace and security created by the premeditated Israeli air attack on Iraqi nuclear installations on 7 June 1981, which could at any time explode the situation in the area, with grave consequences for the vital interests of all States, I liked this one especially the "which could at any time explode the situation in the area" bit. Take a look at the date Nickhere and Dianavan. What was going on at that time? A minor spat locally referred to as the Iran/Iraq War. So while hundreds of thousands were being killed in an all out war of epic proportions, the UN security Council fasten on a single Israeli air raid as the thing that might "explode the situation in the area" - forgive me but I find that rather bizarre, not to mention ludicrous. /Considering/ that, under the terms of Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter of the United Nations: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations", Since the date of its founding in 1948 Israel has attacked Iraq once. During the same period Iraq on the other hand has attacked Israel many many times - True? Is that the sort of thing the UN was referring to? 1. /Strongly condemns/ the military attack by Israel in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct; Plain statement that ignores Iraqi threats and hostile actions directed at Israel. 2. /Calls upon/ Israel to refrain in the future from any such acts or threats thereof; As far as I am aware Israel has complied with this request in spite of repeated attacks and threats from Iraq. 3. /Further considers/ that the said attack constitutes a serious threat to the entire IAEA safeguards regime which is the foundation of the non-proliferation Treaty; See comments raised in response to point 4 below. 4. /Fully recognizes/ the inalienable sovereign right of Iraq, and all other States, especially the developing countries, to establish programmes of technological and nuclear development to develop their economy and industry for peaceful purposes in accordance with their present and future needs and consistent with the internationally accepted objectives of preventing nuclear-weapons proliferation; IAEA inspections had they been working should have detected Iraq nuclear weapons programme, they didn't Saddam Hussein had the IAEA in Iraq completely hoodwinked 5. /Calls upon/ Israel urgently to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards; The UN have no right whatsoever to force nations to do things against their will 6. /Considers/ that Iraq is entitled to appropriate redress for the destruction it has suffered, responsibility for which has been acknowledged by Israel; Absolutely, exactly as Israel should be entitled to appropriate redress for the destruction and loss of life it has suffered both directly and indirectly at the hands of Iraq. 7. /Requests/ the Secretary-General to keep the Security Council regularly informed of the implementation of this resolution. Has he? Or like most UN Resolutions was this one just join all the others neatly stacked under the carpet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Barry Finn Date: 02 Feb 08 - 01:54 PM All resolutions aside, the mid-east, ALL of the mid east & it's neighbors see the nuclear situation (& many of ther other situations) as a double standard & they hate both Israel & the US because of it, that is their prospective it doesn't matter what it is or what it's supposed to be, that's the way the whole region sees it! End what looks & seems to be the double standards otherwise there will be no resolution to anything & the road will just keep on continuing as it has, without any maps, it will not end before it apears that one has the same rights as the other. What's good for the gooose has to be good for the gander. Other wise the cooking's gonna keep on. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 02 Feb 08 - 02:13 PM Well, one thing that both the US and Isreal have learned recently and that is there is more to good faith negotiating than having nuclear weapons... They say that it's best to negotiated froma position of strenght but, geeze, it ain't workin' for either of us, if strength is measured in nuclear capabilities... All that the nukes have given our two countires is arrogance, but no ***peace*** interanally or externally... There is a flaw the equation... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Nickhere Date: 02 Feb 08 - 06:01 PM Teribus - "2. /Calls upon/ Israel to refrain in the future from any such acts or threats thereof; As far as I am aware Israel has complied with this request in spite of repeated attacks and threats from Iraq" The UN Charter does not relate to Iraq only. Israel has in fact been making similar threats about Iran of late. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 03 Feb 08 - 07:54 AM "The UN Charter does not relate to Iraq only. Israel has in fact been making similar threats about Iran of late." - (Nickhere) Israel has been no more vocal in its concerns regarding possible pursuit of nuclear weapons by Iran than most and a great deal less than others. The most notable for bellicose statements was France, made by retiring President Jacques Chirac who warned Iran that France has Iran's enrichment facilities targeted by nuclear weapons carried onboard her SSBN's. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Nickhere Date: 03 Feb 08 - 03:34 PM Of course Teribus, sure "everyone else was doing it, Sir!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 03 Feb 08 - 06:12 PM Remind me again Nickhere, who was it that was threatening to wipe who off the map again? Mistaken translation was it Nickhere? Perfectly innocent and peaceful pursuit of nuclear energy for domestic energy purposes? In which case Nickhere why was it they hid their enrichment facilities from the IAEA for so long? Quite a number of countries regard Iran as a serious threat, Israel quite rightly happens to be one of them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 03 Feb 08 - 06:13 PM PS 600 up |
