BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 04:36 PM

Ethnic cleansing and then free elections, a great technique.

Of course in the old South Africa they couldn't quite get the ethnic cleansing carried out effectively enough, so they never got round to allowing the remnant to vote along with the whites. So when they pointed to their elections and said how democratic the country was, noone bought it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 08:04 PM

Troll,

Ras is partially correct. The law does discriminate against non-Jews, but does not actually prevent citizenship. Jews are granted citizenship automatically, non-Jews have to go through a naturalization process, and some of those can be quite hairy!

However, as I understand it, in the occupied territories, like Gaza and the West Bank, non-Jews cannot obtain citizenship, yet are required to live under Israel's laws. Since they are citizens of a country that no longer exists, they are essentially permanently disenfranchised.

Some portions of the occupied territories -- East Jerusalem, for example, allow a permanent resident status, and I've seen hints that it is possible (it seems possible through marriage; there may be other ways) for non-Jews to obtain citizenship, but there IS a religious decree banning all Palestinians living in Jerusalem from obtaining citizenship.

Israel has a HUGE problem with racism against Arabs -- it seems analgous to the old Jim Crow laws in the US South. In general, racism against Arabs is usually illegal, yet tolerated and rarely enforced. Some of this stems from the almost impossible position of being a "Jewish state" while trying to live up to ideals of a non-racist society. I dunno -- I don't think it can be done, particularly since Jewish religious custom draws clear lines between Jews and Gentiles. But I am certain that it won't get any better until the Palestinian issue is solved.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 08:22 PM

But can anyone explain why it wouldn't be a good idea to set about getting inspectors in to Iraq at this point? Why hang about until some new resolution can get hammered out or not?

I was glad to see that's the position Ireland is supporting, as one of the junior members of the Security Council. (So the UK is supporting the USA position, and Ireland isn't - that must confuse a few people.)

There's no reason why the presence of inspection teams under the existing procedures should get in the way of the US ("and the UK") trying to persuade the rest of the Security Council to agree on a new resolution. And if Bush can't get his resolution and decides to go to war anyway, he can still go ahead. He's just got a resolution through Congress that allows him to do just about anything he wants to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Troll
Date: 05 Oct 02 - 01:46 AM

Thanks Nicole. The problem is that Gentiles seem to think that Jews think that they are better than them.
Not so. They are not better but different. Being called the "Chosen People" does NOT denote superiority. God made a pact with the Jews that as long as they followed His laws, He would not allow them to perish as a people.
As far as racism is concerned, non-Muslims may not enter Saudi Arabia except under the most stringent conditions and must conform to Muslim dress and food (no booze) restrictions while there. There are virtually no Jews in Syria, Iraq, or Iran. They were driven out and their property confiscated. Racism abounds in ALL countries to a greater or lesser degree.
The problem in Israel and the Occupied Territories is not one of religion or race, but of geo-politics and PR.
Outside of China, who knows or cares about the plight of the people of Inner Mongolia where the Government is methodically moving Han chinese into the area. They now outnumber the ethnic Mongolians and their language and cultural identity is in danger of being lost.
In Afghanistan, the Pushtuns and the Tadjiks are at odds about who gets how much power.
And I could go on. On one thing you are correct though; things won't get better for either side until the issue of a Palestinian homeland is taken care of.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Oct 02 - 07:52 AM

Not very different at all. (And wasn't that pact supposed to be about the descendants of Abraham anyway? That includes the Arabs if you go by the Book.)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 05 Oct 02 - 12:20 PM

The sons of Shem have never gotten along as well as they should. Hard to say why.

Meanwhile Bush is flooding the airwaves characterizing Saddam as a cold-blooded killer -- a fair description, I guess -- and waving his arms about the "massive sudden horror" he would certainly cause if it weren't for George.

In other news:

< A new report by U.S. intelligence agencies backed the
administration's contention that Iraq had significant caches of
dangerous weapons despite numerous international searches.


The agencies said Iraq has biological and chemical weapons and some long-range missiles, but probably no nuclear weapons. ``If left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade,'' the unclassified report concluded..

I wish to hell Blix and co would roll in and sort out where they keep what .

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Oct 02 - 01:14 PM

"A new report by U.S. intelligence agencies backed the
administration's contention..." Surprise. surprise.

Just imagine them releasing any report that didn't back the administration's contention. Whatever that might happen to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST,Rag
Date: 07 Oct 02 - 03:19 AM

Thanks Nicole for demonstrating that Israel is an apartheid state, does have anti-Arab racist laws and does prevent citizenship for Arabs living in their homeland. By the way, Israel is illegally occupying Gaza and the West Bank, part of the expansionist "Greater Israel" policy supported by ALL the major parties in Israel in one form or another. And yes, arabs who leave the country are routinely denied the right of return. And yes, the imposition of Israeli law in the occupied territories is illegal under international law.

Saddam Hussein is military dictator put there by the western powers because when he was put in power, he would do what the west wanted. Now he won't. Whatever wealth he has accumulated, the amount of infrastructure damage and consequent death inflicted by the western powers in the last 10 years has had a much greater impact on the population. Whether or not he accumulates wealth, that's no justification for the US and UK bombing water treatment plants, roads, bridges, and power plants. And the UN IS turning a blind eye to Turkish planes bombing kurds in the no-fly zone.

As for evidence of the effects of sanctions, how much does anyone need? A cursory glance around the web will trawl plenty. Oh and please don't pretend that everything you ever read is PR and can therefore be dismissed. It's not always just "I believe it/I don't believe it".

Too many people are willing to drift towards war because they are comfortable with the idea that a small country far away will get bashed and very few of us will be involved. Political adults generally take a different line.

It's important to focus on ending the sanctions. This takes the issue away from Bush making stupid claims about Iraq and Hussein and concentrates on the Iraqi people. Concentrating on the aggression and illegal activity of Israel again concentrates attention on the Palestinian people who are under occupation.

A Scottish worker's leader called John McLean once described a bayonet as a weapon with a worker on each end. It's worth thinking about.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Oct 02 - 03:20 AM

"A vegetable is by nature a carrot."

Poor choice of vegetable - ref to Prat Kinnock and his fellow Commissioners of the EU. Snails are fish and carrots are fruit - if you believe them.

The selection of the wording of the leaflet may well have something to do with translation. Kind of like the drug company marketing headache tablets in the middle east - read left to right, picture one, man with headache in terrible pain, picture two, man seen taking tablets, picture three, man with headache gone, all smiles. That sequence read right to left protrays a completely different story.

"But can anyone explain why it wouldn't be a good idea to set about getting inspectors in to Iraq at this point? Why hang about until some new resolution can get hammered out or not? "

Ask Mr. Blix - I think he's covered this question.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Oct 02 - 06:28 AM

Guest Rag:

"Saddam Hussein is military dictator put there by the western powers.."

Where on earth did you get that from - certainly not from any biography on the man.

"Let's hear it for the Iraqi people. Stop the sanctions."

Saddam Hussein could have brought this about at any time during the last ten years simply by complying with what the UN asked him to do, and what he agreed to in the aftermath of the Gulf War.

Bobert:

On one hand you say, "What the heck does "evidence" have to do with anything? This ain't about facts and evidence but whoes PR firm can beat up the other sides PR firm."

On the other you say, "I've asked a couple of folks here to furnish new evidnece and facts to support their opinions, but they don't have much to offer other than recycled rhetoric and the same guessed up evidence, so don't expect much new from them, Rag."

Which is it Bobert? Do you want evidence? Are you actually even looking at it, or for it? It would be interesting to know what bits you believe and what bits you don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST,Rag
Date: 07 Oct 02 - 08:22 AM

For a detailed history of how these regimes came into being and who sponsored them you might want to look at:

Arabia Without Sultans by Fred Halliday.
He's a professor of international relations at the LSE and has written extensively about the region. He gives original sources of all the details. But you don't have to dig too deep into any history of the region to come across the details. Just take a look at the history of the Saud family in Saudi Arabia, or take a peek at the Yemen story. Find out what the oil companies were doing when British troops were fighting the people of Dhofar - who was it who bought the weapons?...

For evidence about the sanctions look at Edward Said's books where he again gives copious references to newspaper reports of the region, UN reports, and also first hand evidence of the brutal treatment of palestinians. You don't even have to go that far. You can read the statements in Haaretz, the israeli newspaper. Some of the "labour" politicians go on about their intention to ethnically cleans Israel of arabs. You just need to make the effort to get at the evidence.

'course, you don't have to believe it...

As for Saddam Hussein being able to avoid the territorial aggression of the US in the oil region by complying with UN resolutions - that's just naive. The UN resolutions are not what this is about - otherwise Israel would have been hauled over the coals years ago.

And how come both Iran and Iraq have been considered good friends of the west at various times, including Yemen and Qatar when the regimes have been brutal to their populations?

There's way too much posturing on this thread and not enough concern about the issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST,Bobert
Date: 07 Oct 02 - 08:49 AM

Teribus:

Okay, I'll admit to a little sarcasm on the "what the heck" remark but I'm still waiting on the goods. You know, like, something more than what people think Saddam wants or what people think he has. He either *wants* or *has* something. Suppostion is not grounds for a war, especially when there are alternatives.

Speaking of supposition, when folks bring up things like,ahhhh, alternatives (such as weapons inspection or peace summits), your side goes thru a litiney of excuses on why those alternatives "won't* work.
Well, I for one, am again waiting on the evidence. Condellas Rice telling me that I won't believe their PR crap until a nuclear bomb lands in my back yard, while entertaining, is *not* evidence.

So, yeah, if you've got anything new in the way of evidence, Teribus, that wasn't on the table three months ago before Junior started beating his drum for war, then I'm sure there are a few billion folks who would like see it.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Oct 02 - 08:58 AM

Sorry Guest Rag, I must be missing something in what you are saying.

My question regarding Saddam Husein was asked in connection with your assertion that he was put in power as a military dictator by the western powers. In your reply above you mention the Sauds in Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Oman. What is the connection to my question?

"As for Saddam Hussein being able to avoid the territorial aggression of the US in the oil region by complying with UN resolutions - that's just naive."

It's not naive - It's fact.

Here's another fact with regard to Iraq. Their greatest supplier of arms and weapon technology since the Ba'ath Regime came to power in Iraq have been the Russians and the French.

That you seem to believe that alliances and national interests do not change with the passage of time stikes me as being incredibly naive.

I would agree that there is too much posturing on this thread with respect to the issues, mainly undertaken by individuals who blithely ignore fact or reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 07 Oct 02 - 06:07 PM

Hey Bobert! You got TV in West-By-God-Virginia? Well, if you don't get yourself by a battery operated radio and listen to your president tonight. You'll find out why he thinks we should attack Iraq, if that becomes necessary. You might learn something!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Oct 02 - 06:26 PM

Everyone learns a different something from those kind of speeches. If you find the man impressive, you'll find what he says convincing; if not, not.

By definition no public speech can present and analyse the evidence for any policy, even when it comes across as doing just that. (And I don't say that because it is Bush - I think it'd be just as true about a public speech by someone whom I really liked, and who generally seemed to say things I agree with.)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST,Bobert
Date: 07 Oct 02 - 07:54 PM

Dougie: Not only do we have TV's but we got *lectrical* to run 'em, we got flush toilets and all that stuff. I mean, we're like modern.

Ahh, now I hate to disappoint ya' but, you know when I was back in high school I didn't attend the other team's pep rallies the night before the big football games... and Iz ain't about to waste timne listenin' to you guy go on and on about hos Saddam is a threat not only to the US but to the Universe and the survival of mankind. Heck, the media has allready said that he doesn't have nuthin' new so it's kinda like watchin' an old rerun that ain't really all that old. I mean, how long's he been huffin' and puffin' now. I think since January when he gave his "axis of evil" speech.

I'm still real concerned about a few things, Dougie. First, I know that the US can probably put a good whoppin' on Saddam, but there's always the chance that someone down at the Pentegon and misplaced a decimal point and that the Iraqis ain't gonna get the message that Bush doesn't have nuthin' against them and the war turns into an urban slugfest anf the US looses on heck of a lot of folks and kills one heck of a lot of Iraqi's that we supoosedly ain't got nuthin' against. Hmmmmmmm? That would be real bad and rival Vietnem as the US's largest misplaced decimal place.

Then there's this *mulitnational* mantra that the Bush has been spouting when he allready told everyond that he was gonna kick some Saddam butt no matter what. That kind of stuff tends to make folks think of the US as arrogant unilaterialists and kind of foriegn olicy is going to get us bit down the road.

So, Doug, you go ahead and listen to Bush and be sure to have a note pad handy to write down *anything* that is new. Heck, you won't need a note pad, you won't even need a match book cover for that matter.

But don't worry. All the media folks will tell you what a great job he did so you can at least have that to report...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 07 Oct 02 - 08:45 PM

Bobert:

Bushie was persuasive, collected, and read his speech well. It was good rhetoric. In the part I saw he went beyond the margin of reasonable rhetorical devices only once. I only wish I could believe he was capable of writing what he read.

However, I am mindful of McGrath's point -- the qualityy of the rhetric does not change the fact that rhetoric is what it is, and the statements made are intended to be persuasive, not state facts.

Interestingly, the news station kept running a series of knee-jerks bullets along the bottom of the screen, things like "Iraq Trained Al-Qaeda Members" and "Saddame Pursuing Nuclear Capability" -- sort of pargraph headers, unless you were a bit dull and interpreted them as factual statements.

All said, I think Congress is going to give him his endorsement, and he is boldly going into the teeth of a really messy situation which may have some very ugly ttwists and turns.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 07 Oct 02 - 08:45 PM

Bobert:

Bushie was persuasive, collected, and read his speech well. It was good rhetoric. In the part I saw he went beyond the margin of reasonable rhetorical devices only once. I only wish I could believe he was capable of writing what he read.

However, I am mindful of McGrath's point -- the qualityy of the rhetric does not change the fact that rhetoric is what it is, and the statements made are intended to be persuasive, not state facts.

Interestingly, the news station kept running a series of knee-jerks bullets along the bottom of the screen, things like "Iraq Trained Al-Qaeda Members" and "Saddame Pursuing Nuclear Capability" -- sort of pargraph headers, unless you were a bit dull and interpreted them as factual statements.

All said, I think Congress is going to give him his endorsement, and he is boldly going into the teeth of a really messy situation which may have some very ugly ttwists and turns.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Oct 02 - 08:59 PM

Amos:

It's a forgone conclusion that Congress is gonna give Bush what ever he wants if he'll just *shut up* long enough so they can get a shot of getting some more of their folks elected...

Oh course he didn't write the speech. The man never wrote nuthin' includin' the college term papers, which I'm sure he bought...


Like I've said all a along, Bush is gonna get his little war, come Hell or high water. Why? Because he can!

This ain't got nuthin' to do with security. But everything to do with Daddy Bush, Cheney, oil and politics.

Fine. For every action thare is an equal counteraction. I want to apologize now to the families whose kids may get blown up while Bush gets his jollies but you can bet that history will not be kind to this man...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 07 Oct 02 - 10:27 PM

Bobert:

The thought of those wasted sons makes me want to scream and wave my arms; but I fear you are right. What seems like a well-painted rationale now may well evaporate as the force of events uncover other truths, conveniently left out of the rhetorical picture.

A.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 07 Oct 02 - 10:54 PM

Amos: What leads you to believe that those banners that ran across the bottom of your screen or incorrect? Because you haven't seen the evidence for yourself? You got that kind of security clearance?

Bobert: you are wedded to an idea, and nothing Bush or anyone else could say would sway you from the way you believe. You are every bit as hard headed as I am.

I would think that recent events would scare the bejesus out of you folks, but all you do is wave your banners (Peace, Peace, Peace) and expect that you will be protected because that is what you want!

The events: Iraq has biological and chemical weapons. That is an undisputed fact. Iraq is pursuing the development of nuclear weapons. No one is disputing that fact.

So what do we do? Wait until he uses them? Do you really want the responsibility of promoting that view? I guess you do.

Boggles the mind.

Of course, Bobert, you will skip along spouting platitudes without even tuning in to what well might be one of the most important foreign policy speeches made in decades.

Did the president present pictures, documents, graphs, secret CIA or FBI reports that ensure that Iraq has nuclear weapons? No he did't. But he convinced me Saddam is going to get them if we let him.

The thrust of the speech, since you didn't watch it, was the UN should adopt a more stringent inspection procedure with unfettered access to any site the inspectors want to look at, any time, without interference. In other words, Saddam will have to comply with the agreements he agreed to at he close of Desert Storm. If he doesn't, then the U. S. and it's allies will see that he does. It is fairly obvious, even with all of the Democratic posturing of late, that a strong resolution will be forthcoming from the U. S. Congress probably this week, giving the president the powers the has been seeking. The powers every president since Jimmy Carter has had.

The only network that carried the speech live, though, was the Fox News Network, and you probably wouldn't have watched it even if your state has a station that carries that network. Better to bitch, right? Bobert, you disappoint me.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 07 Oct 02 - 11:52 PM

Doug's gotten his meds!! Yay!!

Seriously, Doug, the bullets that ran across the screen were not being presented as facts, but as buttons. They were not covered as facts in the speech -- what I heard of it, anyway. They had no attribution, no metrics, just bullets of belief. I have never seen this particular device added to straight televised rhetoric before. It struck me as a seriosu dumbing-down technique.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Oct 02 - 04:21 AM

Amos,

In your post above you say that you believe that:

"....Congress is going to give him his endorsement."

I assume that the elected representatives that make up your Senate and House of Representatives are not all sheep - Why are they going to give him his endorsement? - Could one reason be that he has convinced them. I am sure that they have received a far more detailed briefing than Joe Public.

Yourself, Bobert, Nicole, McGoH and others keep demanding facts and evidence. As things stand at the moment the following represent the facts of the situation as I see them as a member of Joe Public:

1. The current regime in power in Iraq has openly threatened it's immediate neighbours at least three times in the last 44 years (1958, 1980 and 1991). It also openly backs Hamas and provides financial incentive and aid to suicide bombers and their families. Along with Iran it still adheres to the aim of total annihilation of the State of Israel.

2. This regime has not moderated its stance in the above respect since the conclusion of "Desert Storm", a conflict, which Saddam Hussein believes he won. Binding commitments made by the Iraqi regime, after cessation of hostilities in 1991, have all been totally ignored.

3. At the end of the Gulf War, the UNSC put into force a number of resolutions designed to stabilise the situation in this part of the world with respect to Iraq. Those resolutions were aimed at protecting minority ethnic groups within Iraq, improving the country's human rights record and the total removal from Iraq's military capability of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.

4. To accomplish the tasks set out in the UNSC resolutions, monitors and inspection teams were put in place. Did the Iraqi regime afford them full co-operation and unhindered access? According to the people comprising those teams - No they did not. Throughout the seven year period that they were in place, those teams were subjected to a carefully orchestrated programme of intimidation, evasion and deception - Why?

5. The UNSCOM Team reported to the UN that although much of Iraq's WMD stocks and delivery systems had been destroyed, they could not ascertain to any degree of comfort, or confidence, that Iraqi capability had been totally destroyed.

6. UN inspection teams were removed by the UN in 1998, as it was becoming increasingly clear that there was no way that they could fulfil the tasks set them by the UN in the light of hardening Iraqi attitudes with regard to access to sites of interest. This hardening of Iraqi attitudes took place with the current UN resolutions in force and was, in all probability driven by lack of progress with regard to the lifting of sanctions by the UN. Sanctions however were brought in to ensure Iraqi compliance with UN resolutions, not as the sliding scale reward perceived by Baghdad.

7. There are records of Iraqi attempts to obtain equipment and materials to restart its nuclear weapons programme. Why?

8. Since 1998 sites and facilities previously used for WMD production and for missile development are being brought back into production. Why?

I would very much like to know;

1. Whether, or not, you agree with the above as being a reasonable summation of the situation.

2. What is your evaluation of that situation.

3. Proposed course of action if required.

Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST,Rag
Date: 08 Oct 02 - 08:00 AM

Hi teribus,

"My question regarding Saddam Husein was asked in connection with your assertion that he was put in power as a military dictator by the western powers. In your reply above you mention the Sauds in Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Oman. What is the connection to my question?"

As I tried to point out, the origin of the regimes in the region depended critically on the support and interests of the US, the UK and other European powers. They become "friends" to the extent that economic interests of the west are supported. That's why I suggested reading about it. In my view, the evidence points to the US always defending its oil interests and promoting regimes that will look after them regardless of their human rights records, democracy, or anything else. Fred Halliday has provided very detailed evidence of where these regimes came from, including of the Ba'ath Party and what they stand for, and the conclusion is as above.

Sounds like you really don't want to know about this stuff.


Given the historical record, it is naive to think that the US will somehow change its tune. All over the world, it defends its capital by whatever means it can get away with. No expectation that this will change.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Oct 02 - 09:03 AM

Thanks Bagpuss, I will certainly read the books you suggested in your earlier post.

If you look into causes of conflict throughout history, the root causes revolve around resources and control of those resources, not religion, race or political doctrine, although those aspects do get involved as a means to ignite the situation.

In this the US is no different in principal than any of its predecessors, although I do believe it is a lot more benign than most.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bagpuss
Date: 08 Oct 02 - 09:07 AM

Me? Who? Where? When?

???

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 08 Oct 02 - 09:51 AM

Teribus:

From what I know, most of what you say is public record. The man (Saddam) is an evil blight on the landscape.

My greatest objection to the situation portrayed by Bush is that he seems determined to go to war with the nation of Iraq, whether other means will serve or not. To my mind that sort of obsessive focus is unhealthy. He is also willing to launch a military preemptive attack at the first opportunity. He is contributing to a problem of deranged forve and violence by offering more deranged force and violence. Perhaps this does not trouble you. It troubles the hell out of me.

Saddam troubles me too. If I was smart enough to advise nations on a better course of events, I would. But my sense is that these leaders, and the nations that they represent, are deeply entrenched in a massive and monstrous dramatization which has a lot of onertia to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Oct 02 - 09:58 AM

Well. Teribus you certainlt have been busy with that drum beating...

Ahh, as I don't have the luxary of having the endless hours to pudder time, I'll try to be brief.

You start out in your *justifications* pointing out that Iraq has "openly threatened its immediate neighbors 3 times in the last 44 years", which sounds pretty bad. I'd just point out that in the Middle East, that ain't a bad track record. Just look at the Isreali?Palestinian conflict for starters. There are those who were in the US government that feel that the US evewn gave Saddam a wink on the invasion of Kuwait, but that's a different story for a different thread.

Then you go on to say that Saddam believes he won the "Desert Storm" War. Yeah, right...

Well, we could go over the other 6 or 7 points of *justifications* and challenge them, too, but then this would get so long that folks would just skip reading them all.

Then you ask for "agreement".

Well, that's funny, Bush did the same thing last night except he didn't ask. I didn't watch the pep rally but read the text and found a pettern of Bush throwing 2 or 3 *suppostions* out and then saying "We all agree...". (Sounds like Teribus to me. You two in cohoots?....)

The you ask for "evaluation".

Well, if one is to go on *suppositions* only then we would all probably come up with about the same answer. "Garbage in, garbage out."

Then you ask for a "proposed course of action".

Well, not that I have any chopice in the matter, because I don't. Nor do the millions of US citizens who have allready contacted their Congressmen. Nor do the Democrats who have been out manuvered by Bush's PR firm on the issue of "patriotism". (Nice work, I must admit, but reminds me of Germany in the 30's to be perfectly honest...)

So it's gonna be "Bush Doctrine" and more "Bush Doctrine" until man figures out that it won't work over the long run. It will increase incidents of terrorism as it isolates desperate disenfranchished people. It will strain the US's resources, especially if any of the victimes us Vietnem as an example of how to beat the US. Iraq might.

Yeah, Bush said last night that "We will plan carefully" but plan goes in the shredder if Iraq decides to do the "rope-a-dope" and withdraw its military into Bagdad and forces the US into a street fight.

You've heard my ideas. But they are probably too late since Bush is way too Hell bent on huffin-n-puffin and blowing folks houses down.

But 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.

But, like I say, Bush and his folks don't find that course political advantageous, so it ain't gonna happen.

Lastly, if Iraq does force the US into a street brawl, remember this post, and know that some of that blood will be on the hands of those who allowed themselves to be either led like sheep or bullied into submisssion.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Oct 02 - 12:09 PM

I think what I saw must have been a tape of an old speech.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 08 Oct 02 - 05:46 PM

Bobert: I don't know this is true, but I've heard a rumor that your Senator (take all the pork to WV) Byrd might lead the charge through main street Baghad. Like I say, I don't know if this is true or not. Just a rumor.

I think he is pretty impressed with GWB though.

:>)

DougR

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

People keep on saying Bush is going to go it alone. I just wish he would.

There's no way he can start a war for a few months anyway - so why is he so determined to stop the arms inspectors going in right away -"thwart them", as they say - while he's getting ready, if the danger is so acute?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Oct 02 - 06:43 PM

Bush don't like party crashers, McGrath. It's *his* war and his daddy said *he* could have it...

No, Dougie, quite the opposite unless Byrd has changed his tune in recent days. He gave a forceful speech last week warning that Bush was attempting to do an "end around" on the Constitution. Yeah, I know you're gonna say that all the others have done it since 1941 and I agree with you, but it doesn't make it "Constitutional".

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 08 Oct 02 - 07:35 PM

McGrath: the main point made in Bush's speech last night is exactly the point you criticize him for. He made it quite clear that he favors the inspectors going back to Iraq, but this time with a stronger resolution than the one Saddam violated before. This time the will go where and when they want, with no interference. He said that war was not inevetable and that war was his last choice not his first. He put the onus on Saddam to decide whether or not there will be a war.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Oct 02 - 07:53 PM

And then Doug woke up....

Yeah, right!

Hahahaha!!!!

Ahhhhh, that was 'sposed to be a joke, wasn't it, Doug?

Make no mistake about it, this is a coonskin to be nailed on daddy's wall. We're talkin' regime change. We're talkin' usin' up some old weapons so the tax payers can buy Bush's buddies some new ones. We're talkin' gouging the American working taxpayers for the next 20 years so that Bush can get his jollies. We're talking oil. And egos. And politics. And revising history so that Senior can go to his grave thinkin' the historians will place him right up there with the best.

And you think it's about weapons inspections?

Dougie, I'm danged disappointed in ya. I thought you had a slightly wider vision. No cats-eye or panoramic mind you. But not tuneel vison either...

Gonna have to get you some glasses, I reckon. No, maybe a caterack operation. Hmmmmmm. Me the Wes Ginny slide rule are on the case.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST,McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Oct 02 - 08:41 PM

The USA has declared that it intends to "thwart" any inspections going ahead until the rest of the Security Council does what it is instructed to do, and votes the kind of resolution that Bush has decided is necessary.

And the text of the resolution, as leaked, indicates that what is required, though still referred to as "inspection", actually involves a kind of occupation of Iraq. It's a resolution written with the intention of being rejected - and that is not my judgement, but that of knowledgeable commentators without any liking for Saddam whatsoever.

But that's beside the point. Noone can stop Bush making war on Iraq, except the American people, who do not seem inclined to do so. But in the meantime, real and rigorous inspections could be going ahead, even without the kind of resolution Bush is demanding. At least they might have the effect of ensuring that fewer people were killed "if" Bush attacks.

And maybe he'll allow real and rigorous inspections to go ahead, and will accept it if they say that there aren't any Weapons of Mass Destruction left when they are through. But I think most people take it as read that he's just treading water until he's logistically ready to invade.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Oct 02 - 10:00 PM

McGrath: Yeah, it would be nice to get the inspectors in there before Bush can stop 'em so at least they are there and he can't go bombing Bagdad with inspectors there...

*But*, Bush will crawfish a little his own self while trying tobe danged sure that the Pentegon is offering a plan than will insure a quick victory...

Problem is. They can't. Sure, if everyone in Iraq just throws up their hanas and says, "We quit" then the Pentagon looks like geniouses but if the Iraqis pull all their stuff into Bagdad and say, "Come on, Georgie Porge, come and get us" then the Pentagon is gonna look like some folks that climbed out the special ed window.

Hmmmmmmm? Yeah, it's got to be darned frusterating to Junior. I mean, he could actually loose a war against Iraq!!!...

Now would that make daddy real mad!!!...

As for the resistence, McGrath, we will get it together. I promise. There is 100 times more resistence than there was in '63 going into the Vietnam War...

Peace thru resistence

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 09 Oct 02 - 12:56 AM

"geniouses?" "frusterating?" Bobert, somebody is stealing your personna!

DougR

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

The evil Guardian is at it again...

White House 'exaggerating Iraqi threat'

Bush's televised address attacked by US intelligence

Julian Borger in Washington
Wednesday October 9, 2002
The Guardian

President Bush's case against Saddam Hussein, outlined in a televised address to the nation on Monday night, relied on a slanted and sometimes entirely false reading of the available US intelligence, government officials and analysts claimed yesterday.
Officials in the CIA, FBI and energy department are being put under intense pressure to produce reports which back the administration's line, the Guardian has learned. In response, some are complying, some are resisting and some are choosing to remain silent.

"Basically, cooked information is working its way into high-level pronouncements and there's a lot of unhappiness about it in intelligence, especially among analysts at the CIA," said Vincent Cannistraro, the CIA's former head of counter-intelligence.

In his address, the president reassured Americans that military action was not "imminent or unavoidable", but he made the most detailed case to date for the use of force, should it become necessary.

But some of the key allegations against the Iraqi regime were not supported by intelligence currently available to the administration. Mr Bush repeated a claim already made by senior members of his administration that Iraq has attempted to import hardened aluminium tubes "for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons". The tubes were also mentioned by Tony Blair in his dossier of evidence presented to parliament last month.

However, US government experts on nuclear weapons and centrifuges have suggested that they were more likely to be used for making conventional weapons.

"I would just say there is not much support for that [nuclear] theory around here," said a department of energy specialist.

David Albright, a physicist and former UN weapons inspector who was consulted on the purpose of the aluminium tubes, said it was far from clear that the tubes were intended for a uranium centrifuge.

Mr Albright, who heads the Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington thinktank, said: "There's a catfight going on about this right now. On one side you have most of the experts on gas centrifuges. On the other you have one guy sitting in the CIA."

Mr Albright said sceptics at the energy department's Lawrence Livermore national laboratory in California had been ordered to keep their doubts to themselves. He quoted a colleague at the laboratory as saying: "The administration can say what it wants and we are expected to remain silent."

There is already considerable scepticism among US intelligence officials about Mr Bush's claims of links between Iraq and al-Qaida. In his speech on Monday, Mr Bush referred to a "very senior al-Qaida leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year".

An intelligence source said the man the president was referring to was Abu Musab Zarqawi, who was arrested in Jordan in 2001 for his part in the "millennium plot" to bomb tourist sites there. He was subsequently released and eventually made his way to Iraq in search of treatment. However, intercepted telephone calls did not mention any cooperation with the Iraqi government.

There is also profound scepticism among US intelligence experts about the president's claim that "Iraq has trained al-Qaida members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases".

Bob Baer, a former CIA agent who tracked al-Qaida's rise, said that there were contacts between Osama bin Laden and the Iraqi government in Sudan in the early 1990s and in 1998: "But there is no evidence that a strategic partnership came out of it. I'm unaware of any evidence of Saddam pursuing terrorism against the United States."

A source familiar with the September 11 investigation said: "The FBI has been pounded on to make this link."

In making his case on Monday, Mr Bush made a startling claim that the Iraqi regime was developing drones, or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which "could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas".

"We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States," he warned.

US military experts confirmed that Iraq had been converting eastern European trainer jets, known as L-29s, into drones, but said that with a maximum range of a few hundred miles they were no threat to targets in the US.

"It doesn't make any sense to me if he meant United States territory," said Stephen Baker, a retired US navy rear admiral who assesses Iraqi military capabilities at the Washington-based Centre for Defence Information.

Mr Cannistraro said the flow of intelligence to the top levels of the administration had been deliberately skewed by hawks at the Pentagon.

"CIA assessments are being put aside by the defence department in favour of intelligence they are getting from various Iraqi exiles," he said. "Machiavelli warned princes against listening to exiles. Well, that is what is happening now."

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 09 Oct 02 - 09:30 AM

The more I learn about Bush Sr's involvement with covert Ops before he was President, the more I am inclined to think that they are a family of poeple whose moral code includes lying abount international affairs. Seems to run in the family.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Oct 02 - 10:51 AM

Having read through the Presidents speech, there were two sections that were fairly impressive:

1.

"Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world, where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril."

2.

"Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance - his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited.

Members of Congress are nearing an historic vote. I'm confident they will fully consider the facts, and their duties.

The attacks of 11 September showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al-Qaeda's plans and designs.
Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined, and whose consequences could be far more deadly. Saddam Hussein's actions have put us on notice, and there is no refuge from our responsibilities."


Should the inspectors go back into Iraq under the same conditions and with the existing mandate, to perform "real and rigorous inspections" as they did during the period 1991 to 1998, what is the level of confidence that they will not be subject to the same programme of deception they experienced before? - Neither I, nor anyone here can tell. How long should those inspectors inspect? Iraq is obviously anxious for the lifting of UN sanctions.

Bagpuss, thank you for post above, intelligence material is raw data that requires interpretation. That interpretation can vary from being viewed through "rose coloured glasses" to it being viewed as "the portent of doom". Richard Cobbold, explained the workings of the JIC during his recent interview with Tim Sebastian on BBC's Hardtalk programme, information is gathered, it is evaluated and interpreted on the basis of best case and worst case.

Your point regarding the potential use of the hardened aluminium tubes - I note that the source you quote does not deny that Iraq has tried to procure these items - seems to favour the best case, but offers no reasoning why that should be regarded as the most probable.

In missile technology Iraq is permitted ballistic missiles with a range of 150 kilometers - A worst case interpretation of available information indicates that research is underway to extend the range capability of existing missiles to 1200 kilometers.

IF the inspectors go back in, and IF they are successfully deceived as they have been in the past. Within a fairly short timespan Saddam Hussein will be in a position to threaten the entire region. You may then hold all the Middle East Peace Summits you wish - there will be no peace in the middle east because for the first time Israel could be looking at the real threat of a nuclear attack.

I assume that you guys have been looking and reading the same stuff that I have - As part of Joe Public, I can see a potential threat that if not checked, could possibly kick off a nuclear war - A large number of you contributing to this threat do not - Hope your right.

By the way.

Quotation 1 belongs to President John F. Kennedy. (Oct 1962)

Quotation 2 belongs to George W Bush. (Oct 2002).

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 09 Oct 02 - 10:57 AM

The effort to reactively associate Iraq with Al Qaeda was pretty flimsy. Semantically it was a flood of "guilt by contextual association".

Of course, the rhetoric is self-supporting. Buy the picture, and you buy the strategy. No-one said fascism had to be stupid.

Listen all you fascists
I'm gonna put you wise
People of this world
Are getting organized
Bound to lose,
You're bound to lose
All you fascists
Are bound to lose.

By the way...

The italicized segment belongs to Woodie Guthrie.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 09 Oct 02 - 12:09 PM

A intelligence analyst interviewed on NPR a few weeks ago reported that the aluminum tubes in question had been purchased by Iraq in the past and used for conventional weapons more than once. While it's possible that they could be using them for something else now, the pattern of behavior doesn't fit.

The evidence being presented is so flimsy and circumstantial it would never stand up in a court of law in the US for any crime, let alone one where the death penalty is being considered. Why are some members of the US administration considering this enough evidence to exact the death penalty on Iraqi civilians?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 09 Oct 02 - 12:21 PM

From an old Usenet discussion, of relevance here, is this definition of Fascism:

But Fascism, which is anti-intellectual, is not so much a system of thought, not so much a definable political position, as it is an emotional disease.

It has been different in each country. It is marked by fear, basically - the fear that breeds hatred and intolerance of whatever is different, whatever does not conform to the simplest patterns of behavior, whatever cannot be directly and completely controlled.

Frightened by the problems and complexities of modern life, Fascists seek to simplify through destruction and control through force. Fascism is a psychological condition that can be found among people of all countries, including our own.


Regards,

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Oct 02 - 12:46 PM

"Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small."

There's a saying about one domestic appliance commenting on the coloration of another which comes to mind.

The United States has actually solemly abandoned for ever the use of deliberate deception and offensive threats? The son of the man who was head of the CIA is abjuring deliberate deception? Four thousand nuclear weapons in his arsenal and the most powerful military machine in world history, and no more offensive threats against anybody?

That's really great news.

"Hypocrisy is the homage paid by vice to virtue." (De La Rochefoucauld - not Oscar Wilde, though people tend to attribute it to him; probably including Wilde himself.)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 09 Oct 02 - 01:19 PM

"By God, I wish I'd said that!"
"Oh, never mind, Oscar -- you will!"

Deliberate deception by a nation is now off-limits? The whole bloody clan is undone, Georgie!! Unless you were actually practicing deception when you said that.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 09 Oct 02 - 04:42 PM

Anyone tuned in to C-Span2? Interesting debate on the Iraqi situation going on as I write this. Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Mass. just finished an excellent speech I thought. It seems to me, listening to the debate, that the majority of senators do not agree with your assement of the president's speech Monday night (Bagpuss and Amos).

Bobert's senator (Byrd)is opposed to the resolution being debated because the debate is occuring so close to a national election. He wants to know why the decision to send America's young military people off to war has to be made this close to an election. Is one to assume, Bobert, that after the election it would be okay? :>)

I'm pleased to see "The Guardian" has popped up again as a source of unbiased opinion. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Oct 02 - 05:21 PM

Almost as unbiased as those semi-subliminal messages running across a screen while Bush does his party piece. That's sounds to me like the kind of thing you'd expect in some ricketty dictatorship, when the Great Leader speaks to his people.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Oct 02 - 05:43 PM

Nocole: I love ya' but ya' gotta remember how them courts work down there in Texas. Especially in capital punishment cases. Lots of poor and mostlt black men have been executed for nothing more than confessions that they were beaten and abused to sign of on... Circumstantial? Flimsy? Hey, if its ggod enough for Texas, than ought to be good enough for Iraq.

DougR: Yeah, I've heard a couple of hours of the debates on C-Span radio and now have a better understanding of why America's workers are getting the shaft. Man, there are a bunch of rednecks in the House of Representatives. Well, they didn't have I'Q. tests back when the Founding Fathers penned the Constitution but I would think that an I.Q, of, ohhh 100, would make a nice qualification for the job. That would certainly clear about half of those dim-witted folks out.
Really, I didn't realize that the US had dumbed down to such a degree...

Teribus: I don't know what to say to you. "True Believers" are real hard to deal with.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 09 Oct 02 - 05:51 PM

Well, it at least oughta be above room temperature, Bobert.

Doug: you will recall I gave the speech high marks as a rthetorical staging. If the senators you refer to have changed their opinion about operations based on that rhetoric alone, it is clear they are too easily wafted by hot air to weigh very much. Or are they grateful for the new basis of honest fact suddenly made manifest in that speech? If they were already on board Mister Bush's Oil Train, let me suggest they would have applauded even if he had taken his shoe off and pounded on the table like one of his predecessors. As it was, he made all the right facial gestures, spoke with earnestness and good timing -- it was almost as though someone smart had their hand up the back of his shirt or something!!

"Hey, Chief -- those your sheep over there??"
"Sheep LIE!"

(It's an old joke about a ventriloquist practicing out in the back country. Never mind).

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 09 Oct 02 - 07:17 PM

Amos: I would hardly call John Kerry a fan of the president. He hopes to be the Democratic candidate to unseat him in the next election.

DougR