BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.

Subject: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 05 Nov 07 - 11:55 PM

Why has the U.S. supported Musharaff for so long? Didn't they know that when push came to shove, he would declare military rule?

Musharaff not only formally apologized for selling the nuclear secrets (probably the worst kept secret in the non-proliferation community) to Libya, Iran, and North Korea but he would not let the Atomic Energy Commission come in and inspect their Plants.
He also confirmed that the Government of Pakistan would continue to develop and expand their nuclear arsenal.
                     -(paraphrased from posts by another Mudcatter).

All the time the U.S. was pre-occupied with Saddam and Iran, Musharaff continued to consolidate his power in the Muslim world and especially with those on the Afghan border. Now the U.S. is trying to restore democracy by bringing back Benazir Bhutto who has been in exhile in Dubai.

What is happening? Is Benazir Bhutto truly into democracy or is she just a Capitalistic, pretty girl?

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 01:01 AM

A military dictator with weapons of mass destruction in a country that harbours al-Qaida followers. Why are the POTUS and Voldemort not chanting invasion of Pakistan?

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 03:24 AM

"Why are the POTUS and Voldemort not chanting invasion of Pakistan?"

Because Pakistan has real big WMDs whereas Iran and Iraq do not.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: GUEST,Rog Peek
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 04:15 AM

At least with their WMD Pakistan are safe from American military aggression, as are North Korea. If I was leader of Iran, and didn't have a similar WMD, you can be sure I would be working very hard to make the Americam administration think I had one.

When will America realise that the rest of the world does not trust them to be the only possessor of such a weapon.

Rog

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Stu
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 04:27 AM

"Is Benazir Bhutto truly into democracy or is she just a Capitalistic, pretty girl?"

Show me a politician that isn't either some sort of right-wing religious bigot, gun-toting military onanist or capitalist popinjay - although they're frequently all three in the developed world these days.

The US supports Musharaff because it suits them, not because their ethical foreign policy wants to help this far-sighted reformer. Like Saddam (the US's friend when killing Iranians), the Taliban (the US's friends when killing Russki's) and The House of Saud (the US's friends whoever they kill cos they've got the oil and buy lots of guns) these 'strategic alliances' are tools to protect the US's own self interests in the region regardless of the motivations or the actions of the rulers involved.

This disregard for any type of moral foreign policy (as demonstrated by the US and UK as well as others) is one of the reason's the world's as fucked up as it is, and also a good reason that should any of us be lucky enough to outlive the likes of Bush and Blair, it will be only right we go and turn their graves into the biggest urinals in the workd.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 06:58 AM

I wonder if the USA will learn, eventually, from past errors. Too often they support the wrong men for too long.

Look at Vietnam now: A growing capitalist market economy, a trusted partner for trade, young Vietnamese longing to learn English and to come to the USA for to learn...

If the USA would not have supported Diem for too long such a welcome development might have come at least ten years earlier, not to speak of a much smoother transition to the present state.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 07:25 AM

not about Gordon Brown then......

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 08:09 AM

Rog

"the only possessor of such a weapon" EXCEPT for France, England, China, Russia, North Korea, India, Israel and Pakistan... and anyone else with a few million dollars and the ability to hide their program from the UN "inspectors"

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 09:45 AM

It's pretty hard to assess Benazir Bhutto from here, Dianavan. She's the daughter of Ali Bhutto, a populist leader, democratically elected, who was overthrown by the military. She may or may not have genuinely democratic instincts, but one thing for sure...she does not like the army generals very much! ;-) Once in power, who knows? I suspect that the USA is keeping her in their hand as a possibly useful playing card which they might play to their benefit at some point...rather like Violeta Chamorro was for them down in Nicaragua.

Here is Violeta Chamorro's quite interesting story:

Violeta Chamorro

She was a strong ally of the Sandinista revolution against the dictator Anastasio Somoza. She gradually fell out with the Sandinistas during the next 10 years of their rule in Nicaragua, and ended up running against them in national elections in 1990, with much covert assistance from the USA, and defeated Daniel Ortega. She served one term as president, seems to have done rather well at it, then left politics. Ortega ran for president on the Sandinista ticket unsuccessfully in 1996 and 2001. He then, however, won the national election for the Sandinistas in 2006 and is the current president of Nicaragua.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 09:49 AM

I don't get the impression, by the way, that Musharraf is turning on the USA. I get the impression he's turning on his own people in an effort to perpetuate his position of power in Pakistan. He will not be one bit happy about the arrival of Benazir Bhutto, because her family and Pakistan's military are not good friends.

Whether that ends up making him next on the USA's list of official "enemies" remains to be seen.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Peace
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 10:01 AM

It won't happen. The US needs a proxy to balance power in that region and who else is there?

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: artbrooks
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 10:07 AM

The enemy of our enemy isn't necessarily our friend.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 10:14 AM

BB-
The 'UN "inspectors"' you so summarily dismiss were, as I recall, the ones who got it right in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 10:16 AM

I agree that he is not turning on the US, and I smell paranoia in the title of this thread. Musharaf is actually pro US as far as I can see, and it hasn't done him any good. He's not unique in that respect, as being pro American has led to the downfall of other leaders of men, and countries.
He is a buffer between Afghanistan and other parts of the world, and the US has backed him, in it's need to keep Afghanistan isolated. The fact that he cannot control the activities in his own country in that province which borders Afghanistan is unfortunate for both him AND the US.
I did mention the fact that Pakistan has nuclear weapons before, and that they gave away the secrets of how to make them to other countries. That is a fact and it is to be regretted that he did not face more sanctions from other countries for doing so. The reason why Pakistan wanted the bomb in the first place was because their bitter enemy India has nuclear weapons. I don't notice too much condemnation of that country, perhaps they don't have enough Moslems or Communists, and no oil wells!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 10:18 AM

Where they said the did not find anything, but did not have access to what they wanted to see, the people they wanted to talk to, and they DID keep finding prohibited items ( rocket engines, research material ) right up to the point they left- Well after the deadline set by the UN resolution for the complete report that the INSPECTORS said was not adaquate.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 10:19 AM

And the UN had inspectors in North Korea, too... So I guess they don't really have nuclear weapons...

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 10:24 AM

Giok,

" The reason why Pakistan wanted the bomb in the first place was because their bitter enemy India has nuclear weapons."


Pakistan is balanced by India, the US is balanced by Russia and China ( lopsidedly), and England is balanced by France!

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 10:25 AM

Watch any of the Scott Ritter videos on Youtube for the U.N. inspectors' viewpoint on the matter, BB. He doesn't agree with your view on it, and he was there.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 10:31 AM

Regarding Musharraf, he's been incapable of managing the divided situation in his country and the tensions that are arising there. As such, his position may soon become untenable. If so, the USA will look around for someone else to work with them there, probably Benazir Bhutto, and Musharraf will be out of luck. He may become desperate...actually I think he already has become rather desperate...and resort to extreme measures. He will then be roundly condemned and demonized in the western press (and not without some justification!), but it will simply be Realpolitik playing itself out as usual...and masquerading as concern over various moral and ethical principles.

Pakistan is in an unfortunate position these days, and has been for quite some time.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 10:31 AM

Sorry, I just read the written reports as presented by the UN to the world. THEY indicate that the inspectors could NOT account for various materials known to have been obtained by Saddam.

I wonder what the Syrians used to build that reactor nobody is talking about that the Israelis bombed, and they did not yell about???


Oh, I guess it is not politically correct to speculate on what happened between the "deadline" in November and the actual invasion in what, March? Or where all those trucks seen visiting military storage sites in Iraq ended up ( thought I did point out the article about the UN finding prohibited (by UN Res.) rocket engines from Iraq in European "scrap" yards)

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 10:38 AM

That's the truth of it, Peace. The US has no lessons to learn here. It always has and always will favour right-wing totalitarians against democracy. Pinochet, Mobutu, Tudjman, Izetbegovic, Musharraf, successive Saudi royals, Saddam himself, some of these people were/are truly disgusting, but however bereft they may be of moral scruple they all attracted American patronage.

The Vatican excepted, no state has greater contempt for other peoples' democracies. Or for other peoples, period.

Chomsky's Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy is an interesting read.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: pdq
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 11:02 AM

Peter K (Fionn):

Glad to see you have a favorite author to feed your rabid hatred for America. I'm quit sure you are also regular reader of John Pilger.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 11:19 AM

No, BB, I'll tell you what is not politically correct. It is not "politically correct" in the USA to point out that the USA's attack on Iraq in 2003 was a completely illegal act of unprovoked aggression, without the support of the U.N., a war of convenience planned by the USA, launched upon completely false premises, and that the USA fully intended to attack Iraq all along whether or not the Iraqis had any WMDs, and that the inspections didn't matter, because WMDs were never the real issue. The issue was that the USA wanted to cause regime change in Iraq and occupy that country, and establish military bases there, and control the oil there through a client government that the USA would help set up there...and furthermore to use Iraq as a future strategic base for further military operations in the region, when and if those military operations went forward...as may yet happen.

That's what is politically incorrect to say...in Washington. The supposed WMDs in Iraq did not matter in the least to the Bush administration, because Iraq, since the end of the Gulf War in '91, was rendered quite incapable of presenting any real threat to either the USA or Israel...and, in fact, had NEVER been capable of presenting a real threat to the USA at any time. The talk about WMDs was mere concocted propaganda intended to justify unprovoked aggression by the USA.

Although it's not politically correct to say those things in Washington, however, Dennis Kucinich has had the guts to say all that, so not all American politicians are complicit in supporting that aggression in 2003...just most of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 01:07 PM

"France balances England??? Are you guys still at it??? "


Sarcasm....

---

Bruce's answer is to a deleted anonymous message.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: artbrooks
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 01:26 PM

LH, you say that the issue was that the USA wanted to cause regime change in Iraq and occupy that country, and establish military bases there, and control the oil there through a client government that the USA would help set up there...and furthermore to use Iraq as a future strategic base for further military operations in the region. Do you really think that Bush and his merry men (and I am not at all a believer in the Bush-as-a-Cheney-puppet theory) managed to think that all through? IMHO, this entire debacle is because Bush Jr. thought that Bush Sr. was dissed by Saddam.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 02:30 PM

Pakistan a dictatorship??? Its a democracy. Dee Mock Rah See!
Haven't you been listening to Dumbya and the BuShites??? They're pretty plain about it.

... to feed your rabid hatred for America.
More like a rabid love of factual information.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: catspaw49
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 03:24 PM

Yet again, just another Dictator


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 03:51 PM

Well, Art, if I thought George Bush was really the guy in charge of US foreign policy plans, I might see it that way... ;-) I don't think so. I think he's a puppet of some much more organized people with plans that were a long time in the making. You will never get to vote either for or against most of those people.

Henry Kissinger is one of the key insiders I am referring to, but that's just scratching the surface. Cheney is another. Richard Perle is another...and that's still just scratching the surface.

Bush may be under the impression he's in charge. I wouldn't be surprised if he was under that impression, and encouraged in it by his handlers.

Here's an article about Richard Perle's career:

Richard Perle

All these people essentially serve corporate policy on the grand level. Corporate policy is very much concerned with maintaining control of oil and other strategic resources and maintaining a high level of military spending, which requires either continual war or the continual threat of war.

They have what they want right now...a war without any forseeable end, because its stated objectives are impossible to achieve, and its so-called "enemy" can be found absolutely anywhere. That's perfect.

It's very interesting to read what Richard Perle's expectations were in regards to the war in Iraq. He was quite optimistic.

Now, George Bush has these people talking in his ear and encouraging him to get in deeper, and he believes them. That's all that is required. When Bush is gone, they will work with whoever takes his place, in my opinion, and it will probably be Hillary Clinton. She wouldn't be as easy to fool, but I believe she would be quite inclined to work with them in a general sense...while striking a somewhat different superficial style, mind you, in both domestic and foreign affairs.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Peace
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 04:26 PM

"Hillary Clinton"

She be but a Republican dressed in drag.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Amos
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 04:39 PM

But she gets away with walking around dressed like that, which proves her PR skills are excellent.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 05:57 PM

Yes, Hillary is a highly intelligent woman with a very efficient organization around her, seems to me.


Here's a rather illuminating article about Musharraf in today's Toronto Star:

Musharraf plays his hand craftily....

It's written by Haroon Siddiqui, the Star's Middle East and Central Asian correspondent, and he knows the region well.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Rog Peek
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 06:33 PM

Beardedbruce.
I did not say they were the only possessor. They would like to be, pesumably to facilitate their role as the world's police force. What I said was that they cannot seem to understand that, were they the only possessor, the rest of the world would not trust them.

Rog

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 06:53 PM

You can't depend on anybody in a country where so many people are addicted to superstition.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 10:33 PM

And American Idol...

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Slag
Date: 07 Nov 07 - 02:26 AM

Gee Joe, sorry I forgot that my cookie was off. I didn't mean to post as "Guest" but it is at least nice to know that you are consistant about censorship. Known or unknown you silence the voice of the minority opinion on this sight. I sure thought better of you guys at one time. Keep up the good work. Good reply BB.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Slag
Date: 07 Nov 07 - 02:27 AM

"site" that is...

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: goatfell
Date: 07 Nov 07 - 04:27 AM

I thought America like Britain has a dictator anyway, because like Brown the leader of our country well Britian anyway Bush just does what he wants to do anyway, kill as many American soldiers as he can by sending them over to Iraq the same way that Brown does over here

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Nov 07 - 05:48 AM

"I did not say they were the only possessor. "

OK

"They would like to be, pesumably to facilitate their role as the world's police force."

Oh yes, I have noticed how they have taken the nukes from China, Russia, et al...- Your comment as to motives has no backing in fact.

" What I said was that they cannot seem to understand that, were they the only possessor, the rest of the world would not trust them."

A true staement: The world would not trust ANY country that was the only possessor of nuclear weapons. Thus my comments about balance of power.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Nov 07 - 06:11 AM

Washington Post:

In Pakistan, Echoes of Iran

By David Ignatius
Wednesday, November 7, 2007; Page A21

JERUSALEM -- As we struggle to make sense of the current political crisis in Pakistan, it's useful to think back nearly 30 years to the wave of protests that toppled the shah of Iran and culminated in the Islamic Republic -- a revolutionary earthquake whose tremors are still shaking the Middle East.

The shah was America's friend, just like Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. He was our staunch ally against the bogeyman of that time, the Soviet Union, just as Musharraf has been America's partner in fighting al-Qaeda. The shah ignored America's admonitions to clean up his undemocratic regime, just as Musharraf has. And as the shah's troubles deepened, the United States hoped that moderate opposition leaders would keep the country safe from Muslim zealots, just as we are now hoping in Pakistan.

And yet the Iranian explosion came -- a firestorm of rage that immolated any attempt at moderation or compromise. A similar process of upheaval has begun in Pakistan -- with one terrifying difference: Pakistan has nuclear weapons.

The Iran analogy was made forcefully two weeks ago by Gary Sick, a Columbia professor who helped oversee Iran policy for the Carter administration during the time of the revolution. "There was no Plan B," Sick wrote in an online posting. He sees the same dynamic at work in Pakistan. "We have bet the farm on one man -- in this case Pervez Musharraf -- and we have no fall-back position, no alternative strategy in the event that does not work."

So ask yourself: What Iran policy would have made sense, in hindsight, given the ruinous consequences of the Iranian revolution? Should the United States have encouraged the shah to crack down harder against protesters and ride out the storm, as some hard-liners urged at the time? Or should it have moved more quickly to encourage a change of regime, after it became obvious the shah couldn't or wouldn't reform?

Even now, almost 30 years later, it's hard to know what we should have done. And perhaps that's the point.

Many Americans instinctively feel that the United States should have pushed sooner for reform -- and helped engineer a transition to a democratic Iran. We should have gotten ahead of the storm, the argument goes, before the Iranian movement for change was captured by followers of Ayatollah Khomeini who, it turned out, wanted to destroy the modern, secular state that was struggling to be born during the shah's tumultuous rule.

Advocates of benign intervention would take a similar line now in Pakistan. Musharraf's imposition of emergency rule last weekend was a shah-like act of desperation. A change of regime is coming in Pakistan, the argument goes, and we should work with responsible opposition leaders such as former prime minister Benazir Bhutto to encourage a political transition. Unless Musharraf agrees to go ahead with parliamentary elections planned for January, America should squeeze him by reducing its aid package of $150 million a month.

Reformist regime-change advocates would argue, further, that we're in better shape in Pakistan than we were in Iran. The Bush administration began pressuring Musharraf months ago to widen his political base by allowing Bhutto to return home. And many of the protesters in the streets of Lahore, Islamabad and Karachi this week aren't reactionary Islamists but middle-class lawyers. Their leader isn't the fanatical Osama bin Laden but the deposed chief justice of the Supreme Court, Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry.

Yet even as we watch the birth pains of a better Pakistan, we know that al-Qaeda operatives are plotting to take advantage of the chaos. And we recognize, too, that if Musharraf is toppled, there is a new threat from those Pakistani nukes -- and even more, from the fissile material that would allow others to build nuclear weapons or dirty bombs.

The abiding truth, about Iran then and Pakistan now, is that outsiders don't understand the forces at work in these societies well enough to try to manipulate events. The disaster of Iran happened partly because of American meddling -- in installing the shah in the first place and then enabling his autocratic rule. Pakistan, too, has suffered over the years from too much U.S. intervention.

Pakistanis are in the streets this week protesting Musharraf's gross assault on democracy. I hope they succeed in creating a Pakistan that is more free and democratic. I pray that the reformers can work with the Pakistani military to suppress al-Qaeda and Taliban movements that would destroy any semblance of democracy in that country.

But changing Pakistan is a job for Pakistanis, and history suggests that the more we meddle, the more likely we are to get things wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Jack Campin
Date: 07 Nov 07 - 08:46 PM

The US got about half what it wanted in Iran. With the Shah out of the pictuire, the alternative to Khomeini would have been some sort of coalition drawing on the Mojahedin, the Feda'i and the Communist Party. Probably the PMOI would have dominated it, and it would have led to something like a Cuba in the Middle East ten times the size of the original. Khomeini was far more closely aligned to US interests.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Nov 07 - 06:01 AM

Washington Post:

Marcos . . . Pinochet . . . Musharraf?

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, November 9, 2007; Page A21

Islamist barbarians are at the gates. The president declares de facto martial law. The country's democratic forces of the center and left, led by well-dressed lawyers and a former prime minister, take to the streets.

What is America to do about Pakistan? Opposition leader Benazir Bhutto knows just how to appeal to America. In a New York Times op-ed, she quoted President Bush back to himself: "All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: The United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you."

Who's Blogging» Links to this article
Bhutto (Harvard '73) is a good student of American politics. She caught Bush's democratic messianism at its apogee, the same inaugural address in which he set "the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."

Universal democratization is lovely, but it cannot be a description of day-to-day diplomacy. The blanket promise to always oppose dictatorship is inherently impossible to keep. It always requires considerations of local conditions and strategic necessity.

Lebanon, for example, has a long tradition of democratic norms going back to independence in 1943. America's current policy (backed strongly by France) of vigorous support for an independent Lebanese democracy is not utopian. Sudden democratization of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, however, is utopian -- an invitation to the kind of Islamist takeover that happened in Gaza and nearly occurred in Algeria.

Pakistan is not the first time we've faced hard choices about democratization. At the height of the Cold War, particularly in the immediate post-Vietnam era of American weakness, we supported dictators Augusto Pinochet in Chile and Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines. The logic was simple: The available and likely alternative -- i.e., communists -- would be worse.

Critics of America considered this proof of our hypocrisy about defending freedom. Vindication of these deals with the devil had to wait until the 1980s, by which time two conditions had changed.



First, external conditions: The exigencies of the existential struggle of the Cold War were receding as the Soviet empire was rapidly weakening. Second, internal changes in Chile and the Philippines produced genuinely democratic opposition movements with broad popular support and legitimacy.

With a viable democratic alternative at hand, the Reagan administration turned about and decisively helped push the two dictators out of power. Under the assistant secretary of state for East Asia, Paul Wolfowitz, we supported Corazon Aquino's "people power" revolution in the Philippines and arranged a Hawaii exile for Marcos. Under the assistant secretary of state for Latin America, Elliott Abrams, we pushed Pinochet into a referendum that he lost, ushering in the transition to today's flourishing Chilean democracy.

The only thing we know for sure about Pakistan is that there will be no such happy ending. President Pervez Musharraf was a good bet in 2001 when, under extreme pressure from the Bush administration, he flipped and joined our war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda. But like Marcos and Pinochet, he has now become near-terminally unpopular, illegitimate and destructive to his own country. Is it time to revisit the 1980s and help push him over the edge?

That depends on whether we think Benazir Bhutto is Corazon Aquino and whether Bhutto and her allies can successfully take power, which means keeping both the army and the country intact. Heightening the risk of dumping Musharraf is that external conditions today are not like the relatively benign conditions of the 1980s. The Taliban and its allies are gaining in strength and waiting to pick up the pieces from the civil war developing between the two most westernized, most modernizing elements of Pakistani society -- the army, one of the few functioning institutions of the state, and the elite of civil society, including lawyers, jurists, journalists and students.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice attempted to engineer a marriage of these two factions by trying to orchestrate Bhutto's return to Pakistan under a power-sharing agreement that Musharraf has just blown to pieces.

Our influence should not be overestimated. But we need to make clear our choices. The best among the awful ones Musharraf has presented to us is to try to broker a truce between the two forces before the blood starts to flow, keep Musharraf to his promise of holding early parliamentary elections -- which Bhutto will win -- and then guarantee him a dignified and gradual exit that ensures his protection while Bhutto and her allies claim legitimate authority and try to reach an accommodation with Musharraf's successor as military chief.

It's a long downfield pass. But Musharraf never consulted us on the choice of plays.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Nov 07 - 06:50 AM

"IMHO, this entire debacle is because Bush Jr. thought that Bush Sr. was dissed by Saddam." - Artbrooks

Nothing whatsoever to do with this:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

Coupled with the fact that the same people evaluated the situation in 2001 as did in 1998, reached the same conclusion and briefed the President accordingly.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 Nov 07 - 07:29 AM

And Clinton invaded Iraq when, exactly? There is a difference between a measured response to a threat and jumping into a cauldron while holding your hands over your eyes. It was Douglas MacArthur, I think, who said "never get into a land war in Asia," having learned it the hard way.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Nov 07 - 08:26 AM

What Clinton did in December 1998, presumably on advice, as opposed to a whim, was attack a sovereign state without recourse to either the United Nations, or more importantly from a US perspective, without recourse to Congress.

What George W Bush did in 2002 was take onboard what his security advisors had told him was "The greatest threat facing the United States of America" and he went to both the United Nations AND to Congress. Both houses backed him and the approach proposed by those advising him. The representatives of the United States of America made it perfectly plain to both the UN Security Council and to Iraq, that if they did not act America would resolve the issue.

But one thing is for certain Artbrooks what happened had absolutely nothing to do with Bush Sr. being dissed by Saddam. That is utter crap and well you know it.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 Nov 07 - 08:43 AM

As I said, IMHO. You are certainly entitled to yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Stringsinger
Date: 09 Nov 07 - 03:09 PM

"But one thing is for certain Artbrooks what happened had absolutely nothing to do with Bush Sr. being dissed by Saddam. That is utter crap and well you know it."

Not so fast. Remember that Bush dissed his father for saying that he didn't have the political capital that he needed. He also has a history of being competitive with his father claiming allegiance to a "higher father". He also is ambivalent about his relationship to his father. On one hand, he wants to outdo him and on the other hand he can rationalize that he is really defending his father. I agree with you that the last rationale is utter crap but it's the essence of crap Bush thinks about the whole situation. There is also the pressure from the Bush family to shore up their family image. Bush Sr. can't be dissed entirely so he must be defended. A peculiar dilemma for Bush, perhaps, but not to be discounted. What we are dealing with here is a kind of sociopathy that comes from family training.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 09 Nov 07 - 05:55 PM

Thanks for the link Teribus. an interesting glance back to the days when a US president talked about the UN, and its agencies like UNSCOM, with a measure of respect.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Nov 07 - 05:39 AM

True Fionn, maybe back in those halcyon days the expectation was that the UN was actually going to do something. However, it marked the start of the slippery slope to the ultimate realisation and clear demonstration that the UN truly was a totally ineffectual talking shop fully intent on doing nothing for as long as it could get away with it.

It did not stop Clinton, ten months later advising the UNSCOM Inspection Teams to leave Iraq because he was going to unilaterally bomb it in an exercise known as "Desert Fox". At no time did he seek UN approval for this, at no time did he seek approval of either House of Representatives or the Senate, such was the Clinton Administration's measure of respect for those bodies.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Nov 07 - 09:24 AM

The U.N. doesn't do much mainly because it has become nothing more than a tattered figleaf that a few major powers (those on the Security Council) periodically use to cover their naked ambitions.

It pretends to be a non-aligned gathering place where all the nations of the world receive equal treatment. It is nothing of the sort. They can talk, yes, in the General Assembly, but that's it. They can only talk and pass some resolution that has no teeth and no way to enforce itself. They have no real power. The power rests in the Security Council. The U.N. is set up so that a select group of major powers can, as they have in the past, continue to run the world the way a group of Mafia Dons runs the crime in a large city.

The Godfather of that setup has always been the USA. Occasionally the Godfather is embarrassed, because he proposes something so totally outrageous to the general community that the rest of the Dons in the Council (or at least a majority of them) balk, and they refuse to rubberstamp or approve it...such as the 2003 attack on Iraq.

In that case the Godfather criticizes the U.N. for its "weakness" and incapacity, regards it with utter contempt, and goes ahead and does what he wants to anyway, regardless.

That's a case of the Godfather despising his own creation because it has not proven 100% controllable at all times.

The whole thing is laughable, really. The U.N. should be moved to a new home in some non-aligned nation such as Sweden or Switzerland, so it would not be quite so beholden to the USA. It would have a bit more credibility if such a change of location were made...though probably only a wee bit more.

Hitler would have wanted such an organization to be based somewhere in Germany had he thought of founding one...as he thought that Germany was the greatest nation in the world. Similarly, the Americans always assumed that it HAD to be located in the USA. Same basic psychology in either case, and the same basic contempt for anyone with a different viewpoint on the matter. It's the Superman attitude..."I am the BEST, I am the CENTER of EVERYTHING...the world is MINE to do with as I please, because I am THE LEADER."

The actual ground the U.N. sits on, of course, is regarded as international ground...but it's still in the USA and everyone knows it.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Nov 07 - 12:35 PM

Teribus--

"unilaterally bomb" Iraq. Now can you tell us if you know the difference between bombing Iraq and invading it with the obvious goal of regime change? If so, go to the head of the class. But somehow, I think you'll be staying at the back of the classroom.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 10 Nov 07 - 01:03 PM

Give them all prawn curry and tell them to shut up!

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 10 Nov 07 - 05:28 PM

OK, good point Teribus. But the only failure of UNSCOM itself was its failure to find WMD.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Nov 07 - 06:01 PM

You can't find something if it isn't there, and you can't PROVE it doesn't exist either! This was very handy for the Bush administration, because it gave Iraq no way to avoid being invaded, since you cannot prove a negative. They are attempting exactly the same gambit with Iran, and the Iranians may be naive enough to believe that having nothing to hide can actually protect them. It can't. The Bush administration doesn't care if there's nothing there to hide, anymore than they did with Saddam. It makes no difference to their policy, which is to wage unprovoked war at the time and place of their choosing...exactly what Hitler did whenever he wanted to...exactly what any of history's more infamous conquerors have done.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Rog Peek
Date: 10 Nov 07 - 06:05 PM

Seems to me, the only hope Iran has is to convince the Bush administration that they do have a nuclear capability and they are prepared to use it if attacked.

It's a bloody crazy, frightening world we live in, best not to think about it too much.

Rog

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Barry Finn
Date: 10 Nov 07 - 09:27 PM

Why is there no concern that the most unpleasant dictator that'll may be the most likely dictator to turn on US is also another one that we installed, our own Bush? He is at the moment just one national emergency call, one 911, one Katrina, one Mount Saint Helen telephone all to God away from declearing himself supreme I-a-told-ya from siting on the big throne (or toilet seat). He'll only have to talk to himself at that point, God won't matter, churh & state will really be a seperate issue by then, all the Evan-jellies will be kneeing in front of their new God & the rest of US will be sucking his hind-wind-ness.
Scary

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Nick E
Date: 10 Nov 07 - 09:56 PM

Wow, shure did not see this coming!

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Nov 07 - 01:12 AM

A Pakistani acquaintance of mine told me that it's not the Islamic extremists in Pakistan that Musharrraf is fighting. He said that Musharraf actually benefits from the presence of the extremists, and that in a number of different ways, he has actually supported them. My acquaintance said that the people Musharraf is fighting against and punishing in Pakistan is the moderates. The pro-democracy, pro-west moderates. Because those are the people who challenge his hold on power. Not the Islamic extremists.

He also said that with nuclear weapons in the hands of the Pakistani army, the nuclear weapons are already in the hands of extremists, and that it's the Pakistani military that is responsible for the spread of nuclear knowledge and materials from Pakistan to other countries. And he also said that as long as Musharraf is in power, there will never be peace in Afghanistan, because Musharraf and the Pakistani military see it as being in their interest to keep Afghanistan in a state of instability.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Nov 07 - 01:21 AM

My acquaintance also said that even if Bhutto becomes prime minister, the army will still be the ones wielding the real power in that country. He said it's the generals that the US has to stop supporting (not just Musharraf) if there's going to be any real change - any real progress toward democracy, in Pakistan.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Nov 07 - 06:01 AM

Read their terms of reference Fionn, neither UNSCOM, or their successors UNMOVIC, were ever directed to "find" anything in Iraq. What the Iraq Government signed up to at Safwan was to fully and openly declare the status and locations of their WMD programmes in order that firstly UNSCOM, and latterly UNMOVIC, Inspection teams could monitor and verify their destruction. This they singularly failed to do.

Neither the US, or the UK, lied or invented the amounts of WMD supposedly held in Iraq that was all detailed as unaccounted for by the UNSCOM Inspectors (Hans Blix and Scott Ritter among them) when they left Iraq in December 1998, their figures came from military inventories, research establishment records, manufacturing records and shipping records supplied by the Iraqi Authorities.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Nov 07 - 11:48 AM

Teribus--

Still waiting for you to indicate that you have the slightest inkling of the difference between bombing Iraq and invading it with the explicit goal of regime change.

Looks like it will be a long wait.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Nov 07 - 06:06 PM

Ron, tell us who it was that wrote Regime Change in Iraq into official US Foreign Policy, clue it was the same man that attacked Iraq unilaterally in December 1998 without going to Congress or the UN Security Council. Then tell us the steps taken by GWB prior to the March 2003 invasion, compare the two, then tell us who had the greater respect for either institution.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Nov 07 - 06:19 PM

Who invaded Iraq with the explicit goal of regime change? Clue: it was not in 1998. Try 2003.

We've seen this movie before. Your attempts to blame Clinton for Bush's invasion are getting, shall we say, a bit tired. Are you really that bankrupt of ideas?

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Nov 07 - 01:36 AM

Check your facts Ron Davies and come back and tell me that the people who advised Clinton and pointed up Iraq as posing the greatest threat to US interests in 1998 were the same as advised GWB of the same thing in 2002. Clinton believed what his security advisors and intelligence agencies were telling him and so did george W Bush, neither really had much option.

Main difference was 911 proved that the US was vulnerable and open to attack (Please note Ron Davies that is not in any way stating or implying that Iraq had anything whatsoever to do with 911). Clinton actions were ineffective, he believed it to be possible to "contain" Saddam (The truth about the extent of the oil smuggling and "Oil for Food" scandal, blew that particular falsehood sky high). George W Bush on the otherhand went to the international community and requested that they act, when they didn't he did, a damn sight more effectively than did Clinton. Clinton would have right to do the same in 1998, GWB was definitely correct to do so in 2003. Progress is being made, corners have been turned, it will still take some time but I have always said that.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Nov 07 - 03:49 AM

Iraq......"A real and present danger"    nobody with one ounce of political savvy believed that at the time we were being softened up to accept invasion.

Teribus has been posting one excuse after another for years, but the crux of the matter will always be .....Was Iraq a real and present danger?   Never let them forget that.....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Barry Finn
Date: 12 Nov 07 - 07:43 AM

Teribus: "George W Bush on the otherhand went to the international community and requested that they act, when they didn't he did, a damn sight more effectively than did Clinton. GWB was definitely correct to do so in 2003. Progress is being made, corners have been turned"

Please tell me you're kidding!!
This war was /is a good move????? Have you no vision, not even hindsight??

You must be joking, you're still in support of this war effort??

After 4yrs you think progress is finally being make. We are only playing catch-up in hell!!

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Nov 07 - 06:14 PM

Tell me Barry, if none of this had happened, what do you think Saddam's reaction to the news of Iran's secret uranium enrichment facilities would have been?

My guess is that the second Iran/Iraq War would have been kicking-off any month now.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 12 Nov 07 - 06:31 PM

Teribus, the UNMOVIC terms of refernce have nothing to do with the fact that the US admin treated Blix with contempt.

I said here well before the invasion of Iraq (citing Schwarzkopf and Powell from 1991 among others) that to remove Saddam with no thought for the consequences would create a vacuum that the neighbouring countries, Syria, Iran and Turkey would rush to fill.I said then and still think that of these, Turkey may turn out to cause the greatest instability. It beggars belief that you could think then, or now, that this was a smart move.

What I could not have foreseen was that Bush would not just take out the regime, but with it - in pig-headed defiance of all rational advice - the army, the police and just about every tier of national and local government. I suppose this is the bit you like best of all about the whole criminal adventure.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 12 Nov 07 - 07:34 PM

"My guess is that the second Iran/Iraq War would have been kicking-off any month now."

Assuming your guess is right, what does that say about the number of lives that have been lost since the U.S. invaded Iraq? What does that say about the loss of infrastructure in Iraq? If the U.S. went home tomorrow, would Iraq be in a better or worse position than if the U.S. had never invaded?

Now, of course, Iraq is in such tatters that they can't defend themselves from anyone without the help of the U.S.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Nov 07 - 10:58 PM

Teribus--

GWB never had much of an option other than to invade Iraq? What are you (still) smoking? How about the option of actually letting intelligence data come to him other than just information supporting the invasion he had already decided on?

A reasonable and prudent leader looks at more than one side of an issue--above all when considering when war is necessary. I'm sorry to have to break it to you that your hero Mr. Bush does not qualify. I hope you can still sleep tonight.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Barry Finn
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 01:28 AM

T, if none of this had happened, we would be richer by nearly 4000 military lives, Iraq would be richer by tens to maybe hundreds of thousands of civilian lives. Iraq would be a whole nation as it was before US & in a much healthier state Yes, even under Saddam). I could go on but you get the point, right??????
The US would not be getting ready to file chapter 11 nor would it be split nor wor would it be hated by the rest of the world.

A pre-empted move because of what you think Iran may or may not plan is just as wrong & as poor a choice as the pre-empted move GWB made. You are kindred spirits, may you both someday backdown, backout & backup because neither of you have been going forward in a healthy direction.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Stu
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 04:46 AM

Of course, it's always encouraging to hear Bush apologists spout forth their tired dogma when they are defending his actions in the Middle East. It takes courage to admit you're wrong and in some cases that courage is lacking as sure as their moral courage is lacking too.

Because that's what the Iraq debacle has exposed to the world - the lack of moral integrity of the world's biggest superpower. Torture, kidnap and the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilans at the hands of the American Military and their mercenary cohorts has shown the American dream to be a sham and their political leadership to be morally corrupt capitalist whores (as are their close international allies - it's just that not everyone touts Liberty, Justice and Freedom as being their sacred aims quite as hypocritically).

The Hawks that are gunning for Iran now are not interested in anything except maintaining an open market for selling American products into the region and securing the flow of oil out of it while it lasts. Even as this sorry affair is being played out the Americans are beginning the process of replacing their aging nuclear arsenal with new nukes - hardly the actions of a sensitive government genuinely concerned about the proliferation of WMD's.

It's time we focussed on the reality here: The US and many of our governments don't give two shades of shit about you, me or anyone else in the world. They don't have your best interests at heart. They don't care about dead civilians, dead GI's or dead babies. They don't care if they have to torture people, kill them when they get in the way ('baiting' being the current favourite tactic) or imprison them even if they are totally innocent or they have no evidence of any wrongdoing. They certainly don't care about democracy - to them this word is interchangeable with 'capitalism', another example of their corruption of politcal ideals.

There is no moral leadership, no integrity and complete indifference to anyone who isn't a direct customer of corporate America - even their own citizens are disenfranchised from the American dream.

Teribus is getting a kicking here for defending US government/corporate policy but at least he seems to realise that in the end these people don't give a fuck about the moral high ground (they probably can't even read the map) and don't give a fuck about anything but money.

And they sure as hell don't give a fuck about you.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 09:29 AM

Excuse me Fionn, but these are your words aren't they:

"...the only failure of UNSCOM itself was its failure to find WMD."

If they are then the terms of reference of both UNSCOM and the organisation that assumed its role are highly relevant, and as previously advised, if you read them you will find that neither UNSCOM or UNMOVIC were ever directed to "find" anything in Iraq.

Also I do not believe that I have ever said that the move to invade Iraq was smart. What I have said is that on the best advice available at the time considering the circumstances I can see why certain decisions went the way they did and agree with them. There is I believe a difference in those stand points.

Did anyone lie to force the issue - No I don't believe they did

Members of both Chambers of Congress in the US and both Houses of Parliament in the UK were fully briefed, certain members being briefed in far greater detail than anyone on this forum at the time. In the immediate aftermath of 911 it was the House Secuity Committee in the US, NOT GWB or any member of his administration, who identified Iraq as posing the greatest threat to the United States of America and the interests of the United States of America and her Allies - That Fionn is a simple matter of public record. In this, their own independent evaluation, they were in total agreement with the combined security and intelligence agencies of the United States of America who had given GWB's predecessor exactly the same advice three years earlier.

IF and its a big IF the good Doctor, Hans Blix was indeed shown any disrespect it was richly deserved, because he failed to act to the full extent of his remit as was required of him. Resolution 1441 was Saddam and Iraq's "last chance", full unhindered co-operation and pro-active support was required on the part of the Ba'athist regime in Baghdad and even up to his last report to the Security Council Blix was still detailing patchy co-operation or lack of co-operation - It was Blix's job to demand it from Day 1.

Surveillance flights how many were made Fionn? None, they were forbidden by Saddam although required under the terms of 1441, what did Blix do about it - sweet FA. That was not what the man was there for, throughout he was weak, undecisive and unimposing. The whole world knew that the clock was ticking, Blix however was determined to dither, the United States of America under Bush wasn't and that message was given clearly and unequivocably from the outset.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 10:57 AM

Ah Baz:

"if none of this had happened, we would be richer by nearly 4000 military lives"

At the cost of how many civilian lives?


"Iraq would be richer by tens to maybe hundreds of thousands of civilian lives."

Not if Saddam and his sons had held to their averages in which case around 411,000 Iraqi's would have died since March 2003

"Iraq would be a whole nation as it was before US & in a much healthier state Yes, even under Saddam)."

As far as I know Iraq still is a whole nation, definitely as whole a nation as ever it was under Saddam, with the added advantage of being ruled for the first time ever by the majority, an elected majority at that Barry. Healthier Barry? But then I suppose that would depend on how you define healthy, care to ask any of the 605 Kuwaiti Nationals that Saddam adbucted in 1991, after all they as "outsiders" could give you a fairly impartial comparison with regard to life under Saddam and - Oh sorry, my apologies, the guy who you would rather see back in charge murdered them didn't he. Now that must have given ol' Saddam a bit of a problem in complying with UN Security Council Resolutions because he had to return those people didn't he - bit awkward if they're dead, eh Baz? Or maybe you could ask the Ma'daan Barry, I am absolutely certain that they would agree with you in welcoming the return of Saddam's rule if such were possible - go look up what that twat did to them Barry then come back and talk about "healthier", or did you just mean healthier for Saddam and his sons.

"I could go on but you get the point, right??????"

You no doubt will go on spouting the same rubbish, it would be nice once or twice if you actually came up with some substantive evidence to support some of the nonsense you come out with. You can't, so you won't, doesn't alter the fact one jot that it does not matter how many times you repeat your myths they remain simply myths to any who care to carry out even the most rudimentary examination of them.

"The US would not be getting ready to file chapter 11"

Not even close to it Barry.

"nor would it be split"

You mean to tell me that it was not already split in February 2001? Come on Baz you're pullin' my leg.

"nor wor(?) would it be hated by the rest of the world."

The US generally has never been "loved" by the rerst of the world Barry, envied yes, loved no. Most intelligent thinking folks think highly of the USA and admire what she has accomplished and done for the world, America is far from "hated" by the rest of the world, by the chattering left and a few Islamofascists yes, but not by "the rest of the world".

Please show me where GWB has stated that he will mount a pre-emptive attack on Iran. If you cannot do that stop wittering on about it as though it were fact when plainly it is not.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 12:29 PM

More than a million non-combatants have been killed in Iraq as a direct result of the US invasion and occupation.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 12:52 PM

TGeribus, I think you are so far locked into a military mindset that you confuse an honourable attempt to avoid war with "dithering." As Little Hawk spelt out immediately after my post, the failure of the UN inspectorate to deliver what Bush wanted - evidence of WMD - was perhaps because, er, there were no WMD.

Your contention that no-one lied is arguable. I don't know about what evidence/intelligence was considered on Capitol Hill, but some of that presented to the British parliament was outrageously hyped. And before banging on too mouch about 1441, try re-reading the assurances Negroponte gave about that resolution's limitations, when he was persuading members to vote for it. Compare that with US admin explanations later of why the "second resolution" was not necessary. No-one lied???

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Barry Finn
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 01:24 PM

This nation was not divided before 911 & after 911 it was never more united (to a fault I might add), after Bush's moves, it's now a house, senate, congress & country divided. This nation was never more sympathized with by the world after 911, it's now despised in a way that it's never been before.
We are not going down the road of chapter 11, T? You must be kidding. Have you looked at our dollar lately? Have you no awareness of what's been happening here?
Most Iraqi's that that could have fled! What's left are on their knees praying that we had never come to free them. They are free to either flee or die, it's worst not better than when the MadMan was in control. But you see it better, you should be so lucky!

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 02:06 PM

"CarolC - PM
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 12:29 PM

More than a million non-combatants have been killed in Iraq as a direct result of the US invasion and occupation. "

Source, please. Why should we take your word for it?

** IF ** true, then please allow me to state that the number KILLLED by coalition forces is on the close order of 200,000 at most- THUS you have stated that the ones we are fighting have killed at least 800,000, and you want us to let them have complete control of the country?????


Please let me know how this is to the benefit of the Iraqi people.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 02:19 PM

"This nation was not divided before 911 "


I guess everyone agrees that the 2000 election was fair and that Bush won it, then...


Seems to me there was quite a bit of division.

Just my opinion, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 03:51 PM

http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=78


** IF ** true, then please allow me to state that the number KILLLED by coalition forces is on the close order of 200,000 at most- THUS you have stated that the ones we are fighting have killed at least 800,000, and you want us to let them have complete control of the country?????

This is a straw man argument. The reality on the ground, which is being created by the approach that the US forces are and have been taking in Iraq, combined with the US and Britain's imperialist agenda in the region, are creating the insurgencies. We need to remove the US occupation and replace it with an international peace keeping force that is comprised in large part of people from the region, and not predominantly Western colonialists/imperialists.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 05:37 PM

BTW, to quote Bobert:

"Ahhhh, who were these folks, (name removed)??? Do you have a list of their names and nationalities??? This is another bogus number that you couldn't prove if your life depended on it... Oh sure, you can finf links of folks who have come up with these numbers but the folks who ciome up with these numbers have agendas..."




As for your "reality on the ground", you may make any claims you want- I will consider those that you support with valid facts.

I am sure that you would want the same right in respect to any claims that I made about the situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 05:46 PM

I have no idea what Bobert was trying to say in that bit you quoted from him, so if you intend for me to understand what your meaning is, I think you'd better find a way to communicated it in your own words.

As for the reality on the ground, all you have to do is look at the difference between the success that the UK forces have had using entirely different methods and that of the US forces. Our government is only interested in maintaining a permanent presence in Iraq and establishing permanent bases. So we don't see it as success if the various factions in Iraq are getting along with one another.

But even if I can't prove this, we certainly have a conflict of interest in having our forces in Iraq (we want their oil, and we want to use Iraq as a staging ground for other military adventures), and withdrawing our forces, ending the occupation, and allowing an international peace keeping force to take over in Iraq removes any appearance of that conflict of interest.

Nevertheless, I think the people of Iraq are in a better position to say whether or not their family members have been killed than the government that has a vested interest in maintaining a permanent occupation of another, supposedly sovereign country.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 05:59 PM

"we certainly have a conflict of interest... "


IN YOUR OPINION.

Should you provide other than hearsay to support this opinion, I might upgrade it to possibility or likelyhood.


I do not see much "certainly " in it, at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 06:06 PM

I've provided plenty of proof in other threads, beardedbruce. For instance, the legislation that the US is trying to cram down the throat of the Iraqi legislature calling it a "benchmark" and making it a requirement if Iraq wants to get reconstruction aid from the US. The legislation that if the Iraq legislature passes it, will sign over rights to most of Iraq's oil to foreign oil interests.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 06:39 PM

How would we go about getting people on the opposite sides of a political argument to agree on what is a "valid fact"?

It's not completely impossible...it's just highly improbable.

The routine most people go through regarding "facts" is this: they look up as many so-called "facts" as they can find that seem to support their chosen argument. They then bombard the opposition with those and ONLY those "facts", and they disregard all others.

That is how people deal with "valid facts".

Add to that that most of the so-called "valid facts" they have acquired have come from some quote from some person or organization which ITSELF has an agenda to push...therefore the "facts" may not be so factual after all...and the whole thing becomes more ridiculous than ever.

It's laughable. It's ludicrous.

And so are the endless demands for one's opponent to provide "valid facts" made by various pontificating, grandstanding people here who are merely intent on wasting someone else's time if they possibly can, for the sake of their raging little tormented ego that MUST always be RIGHT!!!

FUCK your rightness! You aren't always right, you're never going to be always right, you're never going to have all the facts...or even half of them...you're never going to be able to sort out the propaganda from the truth without making errors here and there, and you're never going to be anything more than a vain, empty noise bellowing to an online audience that frankly doesn't give a damn.

But it will keep your idle mind busy...right? And you'll FEEL right. That's enough for most idle minds.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 07:42 PM

"and you want us to let them have complete control of the country?????"

The question, of course, is who the hell are we to give or take control from another country?

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 11:29 PM

Teribus--

You were going to tell us how Mr. Bush examined evidence, from many different sources, including those which pointed out the bad blood between Osama and Saddam, and those which denied a link between Saddam and 9-11, as well as delving into the reliability of "Curveball"---all before deciding to start a war against Iraq.

Can't imagine why this slipped your mind.

But at least you've dropped your pathetic mantra of "Clinton made Bush do it" (the invasion).
So maybe there's some hope that you may have heard of the idea of personal responsibility--supposedly a conservative principle--that even Mr. Bush may have to take some responsibility for his own decisions, much as apologists such as your good self try mightily--and very creatively, I might add--- to blame Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 02:25 AM

Ron,

I know that you do not read, or listen to, material from source, that you admitted to when you told us that on the "Propaganda" Thread ages ago.

Now once again for the umpteenth and whatever time, get it into your thick head it is YOU who are linking Saddam and OBL.

The question that was asked of the Security and Intelligence Agencies of the United States of America and the task that was set the House Security Committee was to identify what was the greatest threat to the United States of America, the interests of the United States of America and to her Allies. This was done in the wake of the Al-Qaeda attacks of 11th September, 2001. Please note Ron Davies et al, they were not asked to identify who was responsible for those attacks.

The greatest threat to the United States of America was identified as follows:
a) An attack carried out by an international terrorist organisation (Please Note there were no names of international terrorist organisations named here)
b) Involving the use of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, biological or chemical).
c) That such weapons, material and technology is furnished to the international terrorist group by a rogue government or regime (Again please note there were no names of such rogue governments or regimes given at that point, that was a further question and evaluation)

The above combination of a + b + c = "The Axis of Evil".

The term Axis of Evil never, ever, described any form of alliance between Iraq, Iran, North Korea.

Having been identified the House Security Committee and the Intelligence Agencies were then asked to identify potential "Rogue States". They did and came up with a list in which, ranked in order of threat, Iraq topped the list, then Iran and then North Korea. Now the fact (well documented) that Saddam publically praised those responsible for 911 may have drawn attention to Saddam's feelings about the US, but let's face it it was not Saddam's wisest move, there again he will not be remembered for making wise decisions will he.

Now go and check Ron, the same people within the US intelligence and security communities who carried out this evaluation were the same people that three years previously had advised Bill Clinton - Any surprises there Ron - I don't think so.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Stu
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 02:53 AM

"please allow me to state that the number KILLLED by coalition forces is on the close order of 200,000 at most"

Well that's alright then.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 08:55 AM

And the number killed by Saddam, because they depended on the UN sanctions from 1992 until 2002 to change his behaviour?

But I guess that is alright, then, as well.




Show me the people who protested SADDAM not complying with the UN Resolutions, and I will listen to THEIR comments as to how the US should have taken no action after Saddam's failure to comply with UNR 1441.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 09:00 AM

Good summary, T.

Too bad there are those here who seem to have the motto " I know what I believe: Don't confuse me with the facts."


BTW, I predict the Dems will win the 2008 election, and that there will be a thermonuclear war ( one with at least two parties using nuclear weapons) by about July 2009. 40 million to 2.6 million dead.

But that will be alright, too.

After all, the UN will make everything all better.

Like in Rwanda, Cambodia, Serbia, Iraq, Iran, Somalia, North Korea...

Just don't let anyone else try to take action.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Stu
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 09:09 AM

Well said bruce - let's enforce those UN resolutions, because that's what it's all about.


By the way, whilst you're out with your gun-totin' buddies enforcing the UN resolutions, would you enforce this one too and go and give China a good kicking because they've ignored three resolutions since 1959 and continute to torture and oppress the Tibetans since, and as Saddam doing it offended you so much I'm sure you won't want to let these injustices go unpunished.

Good lad.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 09:30 AM

MY point was the failure to enforce the resolutions, then demanding MORE unenforced resolutions, such as you have presented, in order to solve the problem. If China does not comply, what is the UN going to do? When Iraq did not comply, what did the UN do? And who stood to profit from Saddamn's failure to comply? Just France, Germany, Russia... The ones who prevented the UN from any meaningful action.



For all that some here say the US is in Iraq over oil, it seems to me that they would have a little concern over the present support for Iran byt those nations that will profit from Iranian oil: China comes to mind. A major reason thet the US will not take military action against Iran is the likelyhood of Chinese actions: They might not want to have their oil supply destroyed, or made radioactive.

A significant problem is that Israel, if attacked by nuclear weapons, will probably make the Middle East oil supplies unusable for everyone.
After all, when you are already destroyed, you might want to cause SOME damage to the ones who dit it, and not be overly concerned about the ones who stood by and did nothing effective to stop that destruction.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 09:36 AM

Back to the thread: From the Washington Post:

The Answer in Pakistan

By Thomas R. Pickering, Carla Hills and Morton Abramowitz
Tuesday, November 13, 2007; Page A19

Every day that Gen. Pervez Musharraf refuses to reverse his imposition of martial law and restore Pakistan's constitution brings another round of disturbing reports -- lawyers beaten, journalists arrested, mass protests for democracy crushed -- and another day of embarrassment for the military government's foreign backers. The Bush administration's aims of securing support for the "war on terror" and stability for a nuclear power will continue to be right, but as a nation of 160 million people rapidly frays under repression, it will only become more obvious that military dictatorship is not the answer.

This realization is already settling in. Many in the Bush administration and Congress have been sending clear messages of disapproval to Musharraf. The Pentagon, however, has been more ambiguous, and it is unclear whether military aid will continue as if nothing happened on Nov. 3.

The United States must go beyond verbal condemnations and show with actions that it believes Musharraf is on the wrong track.

If there is a recent analogy to what is happening in Pakistan, it is the Philippines of Ferdinand Marcos in late 1985 (though the stakes are much higher today). During President Ronald Reagan's second term, the administration came to recognize that, despite his and earlier administrations' acceptance of the dictator, Marcos's desire to maintain political power at all costs was destroying democracy and prospects for stability in his country.

His personal ambition was casting the Philippine armed forces in the role of popular repressor rather than national protector, tainting their legitimacy in the eyes of the people. More than anything else, that fact had undermined the Philippines' battle against militant Islamist and communist rebels.

Today, the alternative to Musharraf's military rule is not a mob of radical Islamists -- this is not Iran in the 1970s. The alternative, as in the Philippines, is a moderate, secular political opposition organized into political parties. Both the Pakistan People's Party under Benazir Bhutto and the Pakistan Muslim League under Nawaz Sharif are opposed to the jihadi movements. They have publicly committed themselves to combating not only al-Qaeda but also the political and military leadership of the Taliban living in Pakistan, a point on which Musharraf has been notably reluctant to act.


Poll after poll has found that if fair and free elections were held under constitutional protections and monitored by national and international observers, the result would be a moderate, pro-Western, anti-extremist government in Pakistan. A September survey by the International Republican Institute forecast the two moderate opposition parties winning 64 percent of the vote. The conservative Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid would get 16 percent, it found. All the religious parties combined would get barely 15 percent of the vote.

Musharraf has relied on an alliance with the religious parties, some of which have clear ties to jihadi groups that are themselves linked to Taliban terrorists. After the 1999 military coup installing Musharraf, they achieved their parliamentary majority only through a rigged election in 2002. In a free vote, extremists don't stand a chance. It is only Musharraf who props them up -- out of fear of what a democratic election would bring.

Indeed, the same Republican Institute poll showed that 74 percent oppose Musharraf's reelection.

In the 1980s, Congress began pressing for a halt to military aid to the Philippines, and in the face of massive popular opposition to Marcos, Reagan finally told Marcos that neither the United States nor his own people could continue to accept his efforts to stay in power. Today, the United States must make it clear to Pakistan that our relationship -- including military cooperation, training, support for the F-16s Washington allowed Pakistan to purchase and other aid not directly linked to counterterrorism -- will fundamentally change unless there is a return to democracy.

This means revoking the declaration of martial law; restoring the constitution, the judiciary and fundamental freedoms; and the release of all political detainees. Musharraf must give up his post of army chief and abide by any Supreme Court decision on his eligibility for the presidency. A neutral caretaker government should be formed, in consultation with all opposition parties, to oversee the polls, and the Election Commission of Pakistan should be reconstituted. Free, fair and transparent elections can then be held -- something that is impossible under martial law.

The Bush administration and Congress urgently need to make clear that the United States will not support a repressive military regime that inevitably will threaten Pakistan's stability as well as U.S. security.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 09:49 AM

"40 million to 2.6 million dead."

Should have been

'40 million to 2.6 BILLION dead.'

Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Stu
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 10:35 AM

"BTW, I predict the Dems will win the 2008 election, and that there will be a thermonuclear war ( one with at least two parties using nuclear weapons) by about July 2009. 40 million to 2.6 million dead.

But that will be alright, too."

Brilliant. You can't deflect an argument using supposition and some bizarre flight of fancy as evidence against. Mind you, it is entertaining, so keep them coming.

"A major reason thet the US will not take military action against Iran is the likelyhood of Chinese actions: They might not want to have their oil supply destroyed, or made radioactive."

This massively oversimplifies the relationship between the US and China and you need to look closer to home or across the Taiwan Strait for the reasons that relations will sour between those two countries.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 11:23 AM

The thermonuclear war is going to come when the Bush administration wages war against Iran. It's going to start with their own (the Bush people) use of nuclear weapons. Of course, if the Bush people don't manage to get that accomplished I fully expect the next administration to try to do it, even if that administration is made up of Democrats.

I've noticed that you keep using nuclear blackmail on behalf of Israel, beardedbruce. Is the government of Israel also saying those kinds of things publicly?

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 01:32 PM

CarolC,

"The thermonuclear war is going to come when the Bush administration wages war against Iran."

I do not agree with your opinion. IMO, it will START with the use of an Iranian supplied weapon by Hezbollah against Israel, as they have repeated threatened.


" It's going to start with their own (the Bush people) use of nuclear weapons. "

Nope.

"Of course, if the Bush people don't manage to get that accomplished I fully expect the next administration to try to do it, even if that administration is made up of Democrats."

IMO, the US will NOT use a nuclear weapon until after someone else has used a WMD on the US, or treaty partner.

"I've noticed that you keep using nuclear blackmail on behalf of Israel, beardedbruce."

No again. I am pointing out that IF Israel is destroyed by a nuclear weapon ( and it would only take one to do so), the Israelis would have no reason not to use thier 200 - 400 warheads on those they believed had destroyed Israel.


" Is the government of Israel also saying those kinds of things publicly? "

I do not speak for the Israeli government, just as YOU do not speak for Hezbollah or Iran, now do I?

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 01:45 PM

it will START with the use of an Iranian supplied weapon by Hezbollah against Israel, as they have repeated threatened.

Please show me these threats by Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 01:48 PM

CarolC,

MY comment was "by Hezbollah against Israel, as they have repeated threatened."

Will you make the claim that HEZBOLLAH has NOT repeatedly declred it's intent /desire to destroy Israel?????

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 01:49 PM

100

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 01:49 PM

Hezbollah has threatened the use of nuclear weapons against Israel?

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 01:54 PM

"The Necessity for the Destruction of Israel (See ICT Note)
We see in Israel the vanguard of the United States in our Islamic world. It is the hated enemy that must be fought until the hated ones get what they deserve. This enemy is the greatest danger to our future generations and to the destiny of our lands, particularly as it glorifies the ideas of settlement and expansion, initiated in Palestine, and yearning outward to the extension of the Great Israel, from the Euphrates to the Nile.

Our primary assumption in our fight against Israel states that the Zionist entity is aggressive from its inception, and built on lands wrested from their owners, at the expense of the rights of the Muslim people. Therefore our struggle will end only when this entity is obliterated. We recognize no treaty with it, no cease fire, and no peace agreements, whether separate or consolidated.

We vigorously condemn all plans for negotiation with Israel, and regard all negotiators as enemies, for the reason that such negotiation is nothing but the recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist occupation of Palestine. Therefore we oppose and reject the Camp David Agreements, the proposals of King Fahd, the Fez and Reagan plan, Brezhnev's and the French-Egyptian proposals, and all other programs that include the recognition (even the implied recognition) of the Zionist entity.


ICT note: This paragraph did not appear in the original translation published by the Jerusalem Quarterly. It is possible that this ommision is due to the fact that the source (al-Safir) for the translation did not include this text, which appears in the original Hizballah Program. The original Program was published on 16 February 1985. The organization's spokesman, Sheikh Ibrahim al-Amin read the Program at the al-Ouzai Mosque in west Beirut and afterwards it was published as an open letter "to all the Opressed in Lebanon and the World". It should be emphasised that none of Hizballah's web sites have published the full text of the organization's program, and they prefer to publish the 1996 electoraral program which was intended for the specific propoganda campaign before the Lebanese Parliamentary elections in 1996. "

http://www.eyeonislam.com/the-hezbollah-charter/

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 02:06 PM

CarolC,

Will you make the claim that HEZBOLLAH has NOT repeatedly declared it's intent /desire to destroy Israel?????

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 02:22 PM

Are you saying, beardedbruce, that Hezbollah has stated an intention to use nuclear weapons against Israel?

Would you say that the government of Israel would not agree with your use of nuclear blackmail on their behalf?

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 02:28 PM

CarolC,

"Are you saying, beardedbruce, that Hezbollah has stated an intention to use nuclear weapons against Israel?"

* I * am saying that Hezbollah has stated it's intent to destroy Israel, and HAS used WMD ( specifically, prohibited-by-Geneva Convention area mass bombardment rockets against civilian populations) against Israel in the past. IF they had nuclear weapons, they WOULD use them- I see far more evidence of that than that the US would be the first to use nuclear weapons, as YOU have claimed with NO factual support.


"Would you say that the government of Israel would not agree with your use of nuclear blackmail on their behalf? "

I do not know what the Israeli government would agree with, or not: I stated my opinion as to the most likely reaction.
YOU seem to have total approval of nuclear blackmail BY Iran against the rest of the world, in violation of the UN: WOULD YOU say that the government of Iran would not agree with your use of nuclear blackmail on their behalf???????????

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 02:34 PM

CarolC,

Will you make the claim that HEZBOLLAH has NOT repeatedly declared it's intent /desire to destroy Israel?????

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 02:48 PM

CarolC,

Are you saying that the US has stated an intention to use nuclear weapons against Iran?

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 04:08 PM

Members of the US government have openly talked about using tactical nuclear weapons against Iran.

I think it's pretty ridiculous to suggest that Hezbollah would use nuclear weapons against Israel if they had them. They're too physically close to Israel for that. They would destroy themselves in the process. The fact that you can't see this, quite frankly, scares me quite a lot, since you have said that you are a 'rocket scientist' and you allude to being involved in fairly sensitive kinds of programs.

Iran is not using nuclear blackmail. They have repeatedly said that they do not intend to develop nuclear weapons, and that their nuclear program is for energy purposes. They are entirely within their legal rights to have such a program according to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 05:16 PM

All of this from CarolC:

"I think it's pretty ridiculous to suggest that Hezbollah would use nuclear weapons against Israel if they had them. They're too physically close to Israel for that. They would destroy themselves in the process."

So not only do you seem to subscribe to the belief that Hezbollah mean Israel no harm, perish the thought, you also seem to think that the concept of martyrdom is some sort of major stumbling block and a complete and utter anathema to its members. Since when has Hamas, Hezbollah or Fatah given a damn about any of the Palestinian people over the last 35 years exactly what have any of them done for "the Palestinian people" - Nothing, Zip, Nada. By the bye CarolC did you know that the current populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are 1,159,391 and 459,198 respectively, having atomic bombs dropped on them never stopped them being cities. The zealots who you seem to support, who talk of wiping Israel off the map, and destroying Israel, have waited nearly 60 years. Bearing in mind the examples of Hiroshima and Nagasaki CarolC, can you think of any reason why they would not take the most effective action to realise their ultimate goal and then sit back and wait another 60 in order to see the "Arab Dream" realised.

"Iran is not using nuclear blackmail. They have repeatedly said that they do not intend to develop nuclear weapons, and that their nuclear program is for energy purposes."

In which case CarolC you can explain the following:
a) why the uranium enrichment plants were built in secret.
b) why the type of centrifuges they have opted for enriches uranium to weapons grade.
c) why the number of of those centrifuges planned matches the numbers required for rapid cascade enrichment to weapons grade material.
d) why they had blue-prints for a nuclear warhead.
e) why when the IAEA requested surrender of that blue-print it took the Iranians over two years to hand it over having first denying its existence.

A purely peaceful nuclear programme my arse, even you don't believe that and IIRC you have previously stated that.

"They are entirely within their legal rights to have such a program according to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty."

Correct they are perfectly entitled to have such a programme PROVIDED that that programme is run according to the agreed terms and conditions detailed in the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. The Iranians for the past 20 years have singularly failed to do that.

The only country to threaten Iran to date with nuclear weapons CarolC is France.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 09:14 PM

"I think it's pretty ridiculous to suggest that Hezbollah would use nuclear weapons against Israel if they had them."

I think it is the height of folly to even imagine, after reading what Hezbollah has said and done in the past, that they would hesitate in using nuclear weapons on Israel if they had them.



" They're too physically close to Israel for that. They would destroy themselves in the process. "

You have no knowledge of nuclear weapons, from your comments. There are some very good USArmy manuals as to the range of destruction and radiological effects, for various kilotonnage ratings. Some of us have read them. You obviously have not.



"The fact that you can't see this, quite frankly, scares me quite a lot, since you have said that you are a 'rocket scientist' and you allude to being involved in fairly sensitive kinds of programs."

You seem to think that my not agreeoing with your assesments is a problem BECAUSE I amd knowledgable on the topic?????


"Iran is not using nuclear blackmail. They have repeatedly said that they do not intend to develop nuclear weapons, and that their nuclear program is for energy purposes."

Right. And the US has stated it will not use nuclear weapons first- but YOU have stated that they will. Do you imply that a government ( such as Iran) might actually tell a falsehood????



" They are entirely within their legal rights to have such a program according to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. "

No they are not. They have violated the NPT numerous ways, and the UN has been demanding that they cease their present programs.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 11:12 PM

So not only do you seem to subscribe to the belief that Hezbollah mean Israel no harm

Please show me where I have said this.

perish the thought, you also seem to think that the concept of martyrdom is some sort of major stumbling block and a complete and utter anathema to its members

When people commit suicide terrorism, they do it for what they consider to be the benefit of other people... namely the people in their home countries who are living under a military occupation. If they commit an act, such as lobbing a nuclear bomb only a few miles away from the people they consider themselves to be fighting for, they will be killing those very people. I certainly do not think that the concept of suicide martyrdom consists of killing all of the people they consider themselves to be fighting for. The fact that you can't see this says a lot about just how seriously we ought to take your analyses of anything at all.

Regardless of whether or not you think the government of Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons, the fact that, if they are doing so, they are doing so in secret is proof that they are not playing nuclear blackmail, because nuclear blackmail is when people make threats to use nuclear weapons against other countries if those other countries don't comply with their wishes. And since my comments were in response to beardedbruce's accusation against Iran that they are engaging in nuclear blackmail, your post is 100% irrelevant to anything I have said.

You have no knowledge of nuclear weapons, from your comments. There are some very good USArmy manuals as to the range of destruction and radiological effects, for various kilotonnage ratings. Some of us have read them. You obviously have not.

Even if I had read them, I wouldn't believe them for a minute. However, if Hezbollah used such weapons against Israel, they would hardly destroy Israel. Anything that is capable of destroying Israel would have devastating effects on the air and water in Lebanon as well.

Right. And the US has stated it will not use nuclear weapons first- but YOU have stated that they will.

Some members of the US government have said we will not use nuclear weapons first, but others have openly advocated using them first (Dick Cheney being one of them).

" They are entirely within their legal rights to have such a program according to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. "

No they are not. They have violated the NPT numerous ways, and the UN has been demanding that they cease their present programs.

They may not be entirely compliant in the way they are implementing their program, but they are entirely within their legal rights to have such a program. The UN is demanding that they cease doing something that they are legally entitled to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 11:23 PM

Teribus--

You are a true expert in denying reality--as you note yourself, referring to the propaganda thread of blessed memory. (Ah, nostalgia).

Of course Bush never linked Saddam and 9-11. And he also never said in the State of the Union 2003 "Before September 11, many in the world believed Saddam Hussein could be contained". Among many--to put it mildly--other linkages which were not made by his "team". Anything you say.

Now take your meds and go to bed. Everything will be all right in the morning.

But when you get up again, perhaps you can tell us why Bush did not have the option to listen to counsel against the Iraq war, and in fact had no choice but to invade Iraq.

Looking forward to your answer. Let's see how imaginative you can be. You've set a high standard in the past.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 11:31 PM

I've seen hamsters trying to wear out their exercise wheels. They just keep going round and round and round, faster and faster, approaching what appears to be Warp speed...every now and then they suddenly go flying cockeyed and off balance out of the wheel, take a tumble, and land on their head or their ass!

They looked around stunned for an instant, then leap back furiously on the exercise wheel, and the whole process starts over again.

That's kind of what all these political threads are like. ;-)

Still, it's hard to resist jumping back on the old wheel, isn't it?

Remember: Your political enemies here (and everywhere) are wholly evil people. They are the legions of the damned! They stand for everything you loathe and despise. The world will not be safe until they are all dead or cowed into total groveling submission by massive military force on the part of the "good" people. They are in favour of exterminating all the "good" people (meaning those people that agree with you about politics) so it would be best to exterminate them first, right? It would be your patriotic duty, matter of fact! They hate dogs and children. They drink blood. They pick their noses in public and have bad body odor. They go to crappy movies. They listen to crappy music too. You MUST continue posting here to stop them!!!!!

Do it now. Jump back on the wheel. I can see the longing in your beady little lustful rodent-like eyes. Just DO it.

(you know who you are...) ;-D   Or do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Nov 07 - 12:55 AM

" nuclear blackmail is when people make threats to use nuclear weapons against other countries if those other countries don't comply with their wishes."


So, Israel CANNOT be using nuclear blackmail, since it has never acknowledged that it has them.


" Anything that is capable of destroying Israel would have devastating effects on the air and water in Lebanon as well."

False, as you would know if you looked into the facts.

"Even if I had read them, I wouldn't believe them for a minute."

Then why should we believe anything you say? The manuals in question ( circa 1964 and 1972 ) are the ones looking at the effects of both the Japanese ( hiroshima and Nagasaki) bombs, and the above ground tests. If you refuse to look at facts, what DO you use to make your decisions on?


"However, if Hezbollah used such weapons against Israel, they would hardly destroy Israel. "

A single 100 kiloton bomb, in the "right" place, would destroy over 60% of Israel's population, and over 80% of it's industry. Seems like that qualifies...



"The UN is demanding that they cease doing something that they are legally entitled to do. "

False statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Nov 07 - 12:59 AM

"Your political enemies here (and everywhere) are wholly evil people. They are the legions of the damned! They stand for everything you loathe and despise. The world will not be safe until they are all dead or cowed into total groveling submission by massive military force on the part of the "good" people. They are in favour of exterminating all the "good" people (meaning those people that agree with you about politics) so it would be best to exterminate them first, right? It would be your patriotic duty, matter of fact! They hate dogs and children. They drink blood. They pick their noses in public and have bad body odor. They go to crappy movies. They listen to crappy music too. You MUST continue posting here to stop them!!!!!"




No, those who disagree with me have either NOT looked at the facts, and might, if they make the effort to see why I have my opinions, at least understand that the world is not as they wish,

OR


they have looked at the facts and come to some other conclusion than I have- in which case I want to try to understand how they arrived where THEY are, in case I am in error in MY interpretation of those facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Nov 07 - 01:01 AM

CarolC, North Korea has used "nuclear blackmail" for decades, done so quite succesfully. Now tell me was their nuclear weapons programme secret? They first got a reactor of the type that could be used to produce weapons grade material, then they developed the missiles to deliver the weapon, then they conducted a test.

How many ticks along that same road has Iran travelled CarolC?

Here's another one for you, was Israel's nuclear programme secret? If so according to you it is harmless ("the fact that,...., they are doing so in secret is proof that they are not playing nuclear blackmail, because nuclear blackmail is when people make threats to use nuclear weapons against other countries if those other countries don't comply with their wishes.") Has Israel ever threatened anyone with nuclear attack? Like India and Pakistan, Israel as a non-signatory of the NPT is perfectly entitled to have a nuclear energy programme and nuclear weapons as they are under no obligation to abide by the terms and conditions of a Treaty they are not party to.

When did Hiroshima and Nagasaki cease to be cities CarolC? Today they appear to be thriving, bustling communities. Two nuclear devices CarolC, one smuggled into Tel Aviv, the other smuggled into Haifa would destroy Israel. Tell me why that is impossible. The organisations and their paymasters to whom you seem to give your unstinting support have never shown any reluctance in deliberately targetting civilian centres of population. Why should the leopard change its spots now. By the bye, the air and water in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki is respectively perfectly breathable and drinkable.

Hezbollah, Hamas and Fatah, and their Arab and Iranian paymasters, have only ever been interested in keeping the "Palestinian People" in misery and poverty in order that they may be used as pawns.

The suicide bombers that Saddam used to sponsor did it for instant cash for the sole benefit of their immediate family. What has been the instances of suicide bombings inside Israel since the fall of Saddam in March 2003 CarolC? What has been the instances of suicide bombings inside Israel since the wall was constructed?

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 15 Nov 07 - 02:01 AM

Israel kept the bomb in the basement for years. The veil of secrecy has been ripped open. Israel's nuclear arsenal is no longer a secret. The bomb is no longer in the basement. Its sitting on the stairs, just out of sight but we all know its there.

And what gives??? Whats the point of the NPT when countries like India, Pakistan and Israel are not signatories?

The argument that Israel is somehow 'entitled' because it didn't sign a treaty is just plain bullshit. If Israel has the capacity, then every other country in the Middle East has the right to defense.

Why doesn't Israel take the high road and lead the world by setting a good example? Oh no. They create a shroud of secrecy and threaten their neighbors with their military might.

"What has been the instances of suicide bombings inside Israel since the fall of Saddam in March 2003 CarolC?" - teribus

Well, teribus, hooray! How many millions have died to protect Israeli citizens from suicide bombers? How can you even compare suicide bombers with a nuclear arsenal? Sort of like David and Goliath, wouldn't you say?

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Stu
Date: 15 Nov 07 - 04:57 AM

"Hezbollah, Hamas and Fatah, and their Arab and Iranian paymasters, have only ever been interested in keeping the "Palestinian People" in misery and poverty in order that they may be used as pawns."

It looks like bearedbruces' onanistic right-wing fantasies are catching - the above statement is complete rubbish worthy of the Daily Mail and little else. Typical propagandist, divisive twaddle regurgitated time and again by the the apologists and lackeys of the capitalist right.

Hamas are the democratically elected government of the Palestinian people. They are the instigators of valuble social projects in a place where no one else would start them, least of all Israel. Fatah also have elected representatives in the Palestinian Parliament. Of course, because the corporate political suits of the US don't like the fact someone with opposing views to their own have been democratically elected they perpetuate the conflict instead of working towards a geniune negotialed settlement to the Palestinian problem.

Israel gets away with it's abuse of the Palestinians by virtue of the fact the US protects it. The Palestinians are acting like caged animals because they see little hope and have little control over their own destiny whilst their belligerent neighbour continues to steal land and encourage illegal settlements. Of course, this appeals to the US mentality as they do enjoy stealing the land off the natives and not giving it back - their country was built on it.

The fact moderate voices in Israel are drowned out by the right-wingers gives the impression everyone in the country is a rabid Arab-hater- another right-wing myth. The truth is the only way to sorth this out is by the use of restraint and by talking. If that doesn't happen and a nuclear confrontation occurred, then which side would take the lion's share of the blame for allowing it to happen?

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Nov 07 - 07:32 AM

stigweard,

You seem to ignore that, after 1948, it was the ARAB nations that

1. Controlled what is now being claimed as a "Palestinian State"
2. Kept the Palestinians in camps and refused to allow them to settle.
3. Drove the vast majority of Jews out of Arab lands.

Israel , on the other hand,

1. absorbed and settled the GREATER number of Jews who were driven from Arab countries
2. Invited and accepted as citizens those Moslems willing to live peacefully in Israel

I think, in THIS case, Teribus is far closer to the truth than you are attempting to be.The Arab nations, and the Plaestinian "leadership" leadership, have treated the Palestinian PEOPLE far worse than Israel has, and a case can be made that the have KILLED more than Israel has, by both direct ( actions) AND indirect (policies) means.




Tell me again what TransJordan was created as? You know, the greater part ( 75%+) of the Mandate Palestine territory that was split off and reserved exclusively for the Palestinian Moslems as an "Arab" homeland, with settlement by Jews prohibited ( Unlike the "Jewish" homeland, where Moslems were and remained a large part of the population)?

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Nov 07 - 07:46 AM

"Hamas are the democratically elected government of the Palestinian people."


Absolutely TRUE.

But you see, Hitler was the democratically elected government of Germany, and there did not seem to be any problem in trying to destroy him. Nor did he benefit the German People, in the longer ( over 10 year) term.

Perhaps we should judge a government by it's ACTIONS, like attacking another country, or refusing to act in a manner acceptable to the resat of the world.

Or is it only the US that you insist on demanding hold to such standards?

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Stu
Date: 15 Nov 07 - 08:00 AM

"Perhaps we should judge a government by it's ACTIONS, like attacking another country, or refusing to act in a manner acceptable to the resat of the world."

I think that's a great idea. Let's start with the USA as led by Bush Jr.

The Bush Administration (BA) attacked and invaded Iraq based on lies and without the sanction of the UN.

The BA condones the torture of prisoners, the forced removal of people from any given country, detentention without trial and no access to legal aid, the mass killing of innocent civilians, the use and proliferation of WMD's, 'baiting', the use of cluster munitions and other anti-personnel weapons that kill and maim indiscriminately etc etc.

This is not acceptable to the rest of the world - if you haven't got that message by now, then I suspect there's no hope.

Judge any country by it's actions these days and I'm sure all our governments will look like the morally corrupt corporate whores they have become, but I think if you're trying to defend the madam of the brothel you might want to think through comments like the one above before you post them.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Nov 07 - 09:44 AM

stig,

YOU were the one who said it was ok for a government to act that way, as long as it was democratically elected. YOU claim "Hamas are the democratically elected government of the Palestinian people. They are the instigators of valuble social projects in a place where no one else would start them, least of all Israel. Fatah also have elected representatives in the Palestinian Parliament. Of course, because the corporate political suits of the US don't like the fact someone with opposing views to their own have been democratically elected they perpetuate the conflict instead of working towards a geniune negotialed settlement to the Palestinian problem."

If you don't like what the US is doing, YOU can work towards a genuine negotiated settlement to the Iraq problem, since the US has as much, if not more, legitimacy as Hamas. Of course, Hamas has been killing Palestinians that disagree with them: I guess it will be OK for the US government to do the same...

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Nov 07 - 09:45 AM

BTW,

Tell me again what TransJordan was created as? You know, the greater part ( 75%+) of the Mandate Palestine territory that was split off and reserved exclusively for the Palestinian Moslems as an "Arab" homeland, with settlement by Jews prohibited ( Unlike the "Jewish" homeland, where Moslems were and remained a large part of the population)?

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Nov 07 - 10:45 AM

Feel free to use the rest of your list, but the following requires SOME kind of supporting evidence- if appears to me to be an obvious falsehood.

"The BA condones ... the use and proliferation of WMD's..."

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Nov 07 - 10:46 AM

GUEST,dianavan - 15 Nov 07 - 02:01 AM

"Israel kept the bomb in the basement for years. The veil of secrecy has been ripped open. Israel's nuclear arsenal is no longer a secret. The bomb is no longer in the basement. Its sitting on the stairs, just out of sight but we all know its there."

It has always been known that Israel had a nuclear programme for power generation, understandable as they are among very few countries in the region that does not have vast gas and oil resources. Whether, or not, Israel has nuclear weapons is as yet unverified, although I personally would be amazed if they didn't posess any, considering the threats that they have had to live under for the best part of 60 years.

"And what gives??? Whats the point of the NPT when countries like India, Pakistan and Israel are not signatories?"

Are you trying to say Dianavan that countries should be forced and dragooned into signing treaties right left and centre, even if such treaties act against the best interest of those countries?. Who is going to be responsible for doing that Dianavan? And where and when does it stop?

"The argument that Israel is somehow 'entitled' because it didn't sign a treaty is just plain bullshit."

Not bullshit dianavan just a point of fact. Why on earth should anybody live in accordance with somebody else's rules if they haven't signed up and agreed to do so?

"If Israel has the capacity, then every other country in the Middle East has the right to defense."

Ah Dianavan but Israel, in all of its near sixty years of existence, has not threatened to wipe any of it's neighbours off the map. Most of Israel's powerful neighbours (Egypt, Syria, Jordan) and many other Arab nations (Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Yemen) have threatened in very plain terms to destroy Israel.

"Why doesn't Israel take the high road and lead the world by setting a good example?"

You mean something like their unilateral withdrawal from Gaza (Jewish land captured by the Egyptian Army in 1948) on the understanding that indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israeli civilians would cease. Now if memory serves me correctly Dianavan the Israelis did withdraw from Gaza, now you tell me if the rocket attacks ceased, again IIRC no they did not. Now what was that about setting good examples again?

"Oh no. They create a shroud of secrecy and threaten their neighbors with their military might."

Please give an example of Israeli threats against their neighbours. Please give me an example of any Israeli nuclear threat against their neighbours.

"What has been the instances of suicide bombings inside Israel since the fall of Saddam in March 2003 CarolC?" - teribus

"Well, teribus, hooray! How many millions have died to protect Israeli citizens from suicide bombers?"

Since the fall of Saddam's regime Dianavan? - None, mainly due to the fact that once driven from power suicide bombers were no longer paid their bounty by Saddam Hussein.

"How can you even compare suicide bombers with a nuclear arsenal? Sort of like David and Goliath, wouldn't you say?"

Not at all Dianavan, Iran funds both Hamas and Hezbollah, supplies both with finances, training facilities and materials. You tell me what the difference is:

a) Currently Iran supplies finance, training and materials in order to make the suicide vests that are smuggled into Israel with the express intention of targeting civilians.

b) Possibly some time in the not too distant future, Iran supplies the finance, training and materials in order to make a nuclear device that can be smuggled into Israel in it's component parts where it can be reassembeld with the express intention of destroying the State of Israel.

Readers please note the following remains unanswered:

Can any Iranian apologist explain the following regarding Iran's "peaceful" nuclear programme:

a) why the uranium enrichment plants were built in secret.

b) why the type of centrifuges they have opted for enriches uranium to weapons grade.

c) why the number of of those centrifuges planned matches the numbers required for rapid cascade enrichment to weapons grade material.

d) why they had blue-prints for a nuclear warhead.

e) why when after the IAEA requested surrender of that blue-print it took the Iranians over two years to hand it over having first denied its existence.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 15 Nov 07 - 09:04 PM

How do you pay a bounty to a suicide bomber?

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Nov 07 - 09:15 PM

It's time for me to bow out of this discussion. I simply don't have time for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Nov 07 - 09:17 PM

dick,

the bounties were paid to the families who sent their ( mostly) sons out to die.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Nov 07 - 09:18 PM

Taker care of yourself, CarolC.

Hope to see you again at future Getaways.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Nov 07 - 09:56 PM

Thanks, beardedbruce. You, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 16 Nov 07 - 03:36 AM

teribus - Allow me to re-phrase the question, "How many millions have died to protect Israeli citizens from suicide bombers?"

How many millions of Iraqi citizens and American soldiers have died to protect Israeli citizens from suicide bombers?

Who will protect them when the U.S. withdraws?

teribus - "Please give an example of Israeli threats against their neighbours."

Hmmm - Maybe you should ask the Palestinians and the Lebanese that question. I'm sure there are a quite a few other countries in the Middle East who feel threatened by a nation whose very creation has resulted in death, injury, homlessness and poverty for countless numbers of people.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Stu
Date: 16 Nov 07 - 04:27 AM

"YOU were the one who said it was ok for a government to act that way, as long as it was democratically elected."

At no point have I said that - I don't have much faith in any government these days; please refer to my post of 13 Nov 07 - 04:46 AM which states "The US and many of our governments don't give two shades of shit about you, me or anyone else in the world..

The truth is though, Hamas have a mandate from their electorate and this means the only way to come to a solution is to talk to them, however distasteful that may seem. They provide a social infrastucture that otherwise wouldn't be available to them and the idea they are soley a terrorist force is wrong. Like the Provisional IRA they have a politcal wing and like the IRA any settlement for peace will have to include them, Fatah and Hezbollah too.

What gets in the way of this is the propaganist bullshite spoonfed to people by the agencies with a vested interest in the area - the corporate governments of the west and their allies who stand to loose big style should the people of the middle east finally find peace and take sole control of their own assets.

"The BA condones ... the use and proliferation of WMD's..."

Try http://www.slate.com/id/2099425/ and one of your own true blue rags discussing the matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 07 - 09:32 AM

Guest dianavan, the answers to your questions are as follows
Answer 1 - None
Answer 2 - Same people as protected them before

Observation:
Dianavan I asked you to give me an example of Israeli treats against their neighbours. You know something in the same sort of vein as these:

Example A from Egypt:
"We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand. We shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood."

Example B also from Egypt:
"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."

Example C from Iraq (Pre-March 2003):
"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."

Maybe the "Palestinians" might have a country if those they elected as leaders just for once actually provided some leadership and acted in the best interests of those who elected them, instead of in the best interests of themselves. Now tell us Dianavan how big was the fortune that Arafat amassed while his "Palestinian people" starved? Easy enough to find out Dianavan just consult Forbes.

The Israelis have threatened Lebanon? When was that Dianavan? Before or after the campaign in which Hezbollah fired between 3,970 and 4,228 Katyusha Rockets at civilian built-up areas in Israel?

Oh! That reminds me Dianavan, something that refers back to your suggestion that the Israelis should set a good example. IIRC the conflict in South Lebanon was ended by a UN brokered cease-fire, which like all others had terms and conditions, which the Israelis fulfilled. Now come Dianavan tell us all what progress Hezbollah have made in keeping their part of the bargain. Seems to me Dianavan that it doesn't matter how many times Israel sets a good example the other side never feels the need to respond in kind.

If you actually look into the history of things Dianavan the "other countries in the Middle East who feel threatened" probably had very good cause to fear retribution for the threats that they themselves made. But not to hammer too much on the semantics but "feeling threatened" does not quite equate to "being threatened". One is a subjective evaluation the other is a recorded matter of fact. Now give me an example of Israeli treats against their neighbours.

A little secret Dianavan, I cannot think of one single nation on this planet whose very creation didn't resulted in death, injury, homlessness and poverty for countless numbers of people. That especially is true of the land you came from and the land to which you ran.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Stu
Date: 16 Nov 07 - 11:05 AM

"Maybe the "Palestinians" might have a country if those they elected as leaders just for once actually provided some leadership and acted in the best interests of those who elected them, instead of in the best interests of themselves"

This could be said of any country in the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 07 - 01:35 PM

Ah! true stigweard, very true.

Unfortunately all previous chances that those collectively called the "Palestinians" had of having/getting a country were pissed against the wall by a bunch of tossers (Their "Leaders") who promised them paradise tomorrow, or the day after, or the day after that, etc, etc, etc, but meanwhile restrict yourselves to the shit and crumbs that we are prepared to feed you.

In this task throughout the "Cold War" years, the "Leaders" of the "Palestinians" were aided and abetted by their Arab "Host" nations who saw and took political advantage of the plight of these poor beggars, by ensuring that they remained poor beggars while they played the USSR against the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Nov 07 - 01:36 PM

Condi Rice went to Pakistan and met with the dictator president.
3 days later he declared a national emergency / martial law / code red and suspended elections.


Condi said "she was shocked, shocked I tell you. He promised everything was just fine and didn't ever mention an emergency"


hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm



sounds like a practice demonstration for George

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 16 Nov 07 - 08:20 PM

Serbia, beardedbruce???

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Rog Peek
Date: 17 Nov 07 - 07:12 AM

"....but meanwhile restrict yourselves to the shit and crumbs that we are prepared to feed you."

or promise you "pie in the sky when you die". This is the way the ruling classes work the world over.

Rog

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Stringsinger
Date: 17 Nov 07 - 06:37 PM

"Sorry, I just read the written reports as presented by the UN to the world. THEY indicate that the inspectors could NOT account for various materials known to have been obtained by Saddam."

But they could account for the fact that the known materials were not for the purpose of
nuclear weapons. UNSCOM established that. Of course, many of the materials obtained by Saddam came from the US under Bush Sr.

Written reports by the UN may not have been an official document by the UN as a whole.
"Reports" indicate that they may have been delivered by individual nation members.
Perhaps John Bolton wrote one of these reports.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Nov 07 - 03:49 PM

Well Stringsinger we do know for a fact that the UNSCOM Report presented to the Security Council of the United Nations in January 1999 that detailed their efforts and detailed the discrepencies were signed by one Dr. Hans Blix and by Scott Ritter. That is a matter of record, not supposition.

Oh by the bye in his job as an arms inspector Bolton was extremely professional and regarded as being very good.