US/British planes fire on Iraq (closed)

Subject: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Alice
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 01:58 PM

I've been listening to the news on this for the last hour on one TV news station. A press conference coming up shortly. Anyone else watching news of this?

Alice

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: katlaughing
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 02:10 PM

Hadn't heard about it, until opening your thread, Alice. Here is what AP has to say. I do not liek the sounds of this, at all. Thansk for bringing it to our attention.

U.S. Planes Attack Iraq Radar Sites
The Associated Press
Friday, Feb. 16, 2001; 2:02 p.m. EST

WASHINGTON –– U.S. and British planes struck Iraqi air defense sites south of Baghdad Friday in a mission meant to destroy radar systems that had been threatening American and British aircraft, Pentagon officials said.

"We fired on some integrated air defense targets in Iraq," one official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

All U.S. and British planes involved in the attack returned safely, the official said.

Some of the Iraqi radars were located north of the 33rd Parallel, which marks the outer limit of the "no-fly" zone that U.S. and British planes have been enforcing over southern Iraq since the end of the 1991 Gulf War.

The Pentagon official said Friday's strike was the first against targets outside the southern no-fly zone since December 1998, when U.S. and British planes staged a four-day air campaign against Iraq.

The official said the allied aircraft did not fly outside the no-fly zone. They used "standoff" weapons to reach their targets, he said. These are capable of zeroing in on targets from a distance after being launched from an aircraft, making it safer for the pilot.

Air-raid sirens wailed through Baghdad Friday night and explosions were heard as anti-aircraft weapons fired into the sky.

Witnesses saw nothing unusual over the Iraqi capital, but the city was tense. The explosions from anti-aircraft weaponry from the southern and western outskirts of the city began soon afterward.

State-run TV aired its regular newscast. Another station, al-Shabab TV, began playing patriotic songs and showing footage of commando training and marching.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Alice
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 02:13 PM

Pentagon briefing will be aired in a few minutes.

Alice

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: catspaw49
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 02:21 PM

Yeah alice, I've been watching too. Kat's posted AP summary is pretty much what they are saying at this point. Waiting..........

Spaw

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Wesley S
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 03:15 PM

Please keep us posted.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 03:21 PM

If American and British pilots were at risk, sounds justified to me. We are there on a United Nations mission.

DougR

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: kendall
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 03:43 PM

Hey Doug, I thought you had quit us. Glad you didn't. And, I agree with you.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: wdyat12
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 03:57 PM

I've got close friends with kids over there. We are all quite nervous. wdyat12

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 03:58 PM

And "Presto"! New TV stars will be created! Fascinating when you think that there would be no:

Roger Cossack, Greta Van Sustram, and Gerry Spence, without "OJ"

and no:

Peter Arnott, Wolf Blitzer, Colin Powell, Christine Amanpoor, and Norman Shwartzkoff, and that "scud stud" guy, without desert storm.

and no: Lanny Davis, Charlie Rangle, and the rest of that revolting cast of attackers and denyers without "Bubba's" wandering dickie. By the way, anybody notice how much younger (and in some cases scarier) they look today than when they debuted? Plastic surgery is everywhere...glad we don't need it on Mudcat.

I'll probably watch a fair bit of it. Curiosity and sheer wonder of it all, ya know.

Rick

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Peter Kasin
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 04:13 PM

I haven't heard anything more yet on this, and I'm about to be sequestered for the weekend at a fiddlers getaway at a ranch/conference center, but I'm aware that it's been reported that the Iraqi military has pretty much routinely shot at US/British pilots, and that intelligence reports point to a growing re-armament in Iraq. I also agree with Doug R on his initial reaction. We'll just have to see how this all plays out, whether it will help prevent a bigger mess from happening later, or if Hussein wants to escalate it into who knows what.

-chanteyranger

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: wdyat12
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 04:17 PM

chantyranger,

I hope this is a squelch and not fuel for another storm.

wdyat12

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: GUEST,ivan
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 04:20 PM

What UN mission are we on. If US & UK planes didn's fly over Iraq none of our pilots would be at risk. We don't seem to be prventing any mess just helping to continue/create one.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Bert
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 04:24 PM

My thoughts are with you wdyat12. I had many friends on that area before the Iran/Contra scandal when we started selling arms to Iran. They're probably all dead now.

Of course we all KNOW that Daddy Bush had nothing at all to do with that.

Here's hoping that this turns out to be a minor deal and your friends remain safe and sound.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: mousethief
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 04:34 PM

If I recall correctcly we are supposed to be ensuring that Iraq does not create or use any weapons of mass destruction, and prevent their planes from overflying Kuwait. Maybe somebody who knows more precisely what the UN mandate is in this area can say more?

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: catspaw49
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 04:50 PM

The only difference in this and what we have been doing since the end(?) of the Gulf War is that 4 of the 5 were inside the 33rd and 5 to 20 miles from Baghdad. We've been taking out radar and weapons sites on a regular basis and they have been building them up on a regular basis. They were tired of the US bombing them so they moved the new ones inside the "No-Fly" zone. As the firings on planes picked up again, we, again, bombed the crap out of the radar/AA installations. This is the same policy that has been going on.........same shit, different day.

And isn't it nice the Kuwaitis are making big bucks on their oil again.............................

geeziz.....

Spaw

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 05:37 PM

"Its Deja Vu all over again!"- Prince George picking up where Daddy left off. Ain't that America- somethin' to see.

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 05:37 PM

Well let's get this worked out. The economy is weak and war stimulates it. I work for the Air Force and it is only timing that our Expeditionary Wing wasn't involved.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Penny S.
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 06:22 PM

Any of you folks with military experience know how long it takes to get something like this rolling?

Penny

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 06:39 PM

It's really too bad the US and the UK etc backed Saddam so enthusiastically (if surreptitiously at times) all through the war with Iran isn't it? - including turning a complete blind eye to atrocities carried out by him against the Kurds - even to the extent of helping out by shooting down a Iranian airliner.

And of course when the Turkish air force today flies over and bombs Kurds in the "no-fly zone", the US/UK don't make any effort to stop them.

This is politics - maybe in 30 years the facts, whatever they are, will come out. And whatever they are, they won't be the ones we are told at the time. They never are.

Here's a song I wrote about that kind of stuff a couple of years ago, in the context of Kosovo:

Collateral Damage
I'd a neighbour was cruel to his children,
The poor kids had a swine for a dad.
I just couldn't stand it no longer,
The racket was driving me mad.
It was plain that I had to take action,
Put an end to his sinister games,
And I felt such a strange satisfaction
Seeing his house as it went up in flames.
It's a shame the flames spread once they'd started,
oh the smoke and the smell and the heat.
In the morning I fairly felt gutted,
but then, so was the rest of the street.

But I couldn't do nothing,
I had to do something,
He was such a swine and a slob
It's a pity the kids were burnt up in the blaze,
while the neighbour was down at the pub,
But I couldn't do nothing,
I had to do something,
He was ever so nasty and bad
Though the outcome was grim,
it was all down to him
And the matches were all that I had...

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Tony (home) in Sweden
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 06:41 PM

Penny, I'm to understand that it's been on the boil for the best part of 1½ yrs, when patrol aircraft zeroed in on the co-ordinates of the Iraqi air defense sites south of Baghdad. These COs can then be used by any other patrol when necessary, and as we have heard today/night, that's exactly what's been done.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 07:23 PM

Say, I haven't been keeping up. Have women gotten the right to vote in Kuwait yet?

Cheers,

-- Arne Lagsetmo

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: mousethief
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 07:28 PM

Does anybody vote in Kuwait?

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 10:12 PM

I evidently was incorrect when I said in my original post that the US and British are a UN mission. I heard a later report that the UN is not involved. The "no fly" zone was evidently established by the U.S. and G.B., and perhaps the other nations involved in the consortium involved in Desert Storm after that conflict.

Frankly, I think it evidently has just been a slow news day because, in my opinion, the press is way overplaying this incident. Evidently this attack is not that different from others that take place regularly.

No, Kendall, I never quit the Mudcat. I just decided not to participate in further political discussions.

DougR

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Troll
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 10:38 PM

Saddam is reputed to have two divisions on the Syrian border and has been pressuring the Syrians to let him cross Syrian territory to reach Israel.
A recent defector said that he has two nuclear devices and is working on a third. The problem is a reliable delivery system. Scuds probably wouldn't cut it.
Our government definitely made a mistake when we helped him build his army during the Iran-Iraq war. We made the monster and now we are responsible for controling it.
What I have never understood is Bushs' refusal to go on to Bagdad and take him out once and for all when we had the chance. Of course it would have played hell with the balance of power in the Middle East but would it have been any worse than the situation there now?
As was pointed out on another thread, alliances are not made for moral or humanitarian reasons but for reasons of economic and national interest.It is truly said that politics makes strange bedfellows.

troll

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: katlaughing
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 10:49 PM

Geez, it sure does, troll! I happen to agree with you in wondering why Bush didn't just take him out, too!

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 17 Feb 01 - 04:50 AM

And bang goes the stock market, plunging like a plane in flames. Oh, wait, there haven't been any planes in flames. Well, bang goes the stock market, plunging like the benighted economy. Still, a nice war will take people's minds off the economy, won't it?

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Penny S.
Date: 17 Feb 01 - 06:59 AM

I knew that there were regular missions being flown. It seems remarkably close to a change in the man at the top of one of the nations concerned that this has been escalated, when there will be probable developments which should also have been planned for.

Penny

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Gary T
Date: 17 Feb 01 - 07:49 AM

Just recently Iraq has acquired SAM's (surface-to-air missiles) that have significantly increased the probability that they might actually take out a U.S. or British plane. This, apparently, is their goal--they would love to have a downed plane to exploit for propaganda, presumably of the swaggering variety. The longer reach of U.S./U.K. countermeasures that made the news is in response to the increased threat posed by Saddam's new toys.

It seems every U.S./U.K. firing action is answered with Iraqi reports of X number of civilian casualties. My belief is that there have been few, if any, such casualties and that Iraq keeps saying such things on the hope that if you lie long enough, people will start believing it.

I wish safety and health to wdyat12's friends and all civilians in the region.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: MARINER
Date: 17 Feb 01 - 08:56 AM

Gary T,Of course Iraq would like to down some U.K./U.S.A.planes. If the Iraqis were bombing your country,and including it appears,innocent civilians, on a daily basis wouldn't you like to take out some of their planes??.Not only are they bombing the place to hell, but have you read of the mortality rate among children there due to the lack of basic medicines?. Meanwhile Sadam and his twisted family sit back and amass fortunes of the broken backs of his people.I still wonder why Bush the Elder didn't finish him when he had the chance and public opinion on his side.If he had maybe we wouldn't have this slaughter of innocent civilians to day, including the children and elderly left to die from lack of facilities. It worries me, now that young Bush is in power as he has already shown that he has little regard for human life.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 17 Feb 01 - 11:10 AM

May I repeat my point: the American economy is in deep trouble.

All rulers have found, throughout history, that if they can't run the economy, a war takes people's minds off things.

Nobody wants to hate the bosses when there are convenient foreigners to hate (preferably distant enough that you can't actually see the foreigners starve and die).

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Gervase
Date: 17 Feb 01 - 11:22 AM

Thank you Kevin, Mariner; well said.
I find it obscene that we are prepared to continue sanctions which have actively led to the deaths of Iraqie civilians, are prepared to destroy defensive munitions with all the resulting "collateral damage" and continue a course of action which is no longer condoned by the Alliance that went to war in Desert Storm and which risks greatly destabilising the peace process across the Middle East - and at the same time we accept Turkey as a member of NATO when it is systematically killing Kurds on the northern Iraqi border - something which is recognised but ignored by the many British and American personnel based at Incirluk airbase.
From Dubbya I expected it - but I'm disgusted with Blair!

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: GUEST,Guest Who
Date: 17 Feb 01 - 03:05 PM

Come on Gervase - what do you expect from Blair? His first Guest at 10 Downing Street was M thatcher - Warmonger First Class.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 18 Feb 01 - 12:21 AM

Marinar: Seems to me you're sending a mixed message. George, Sr. is criticized because he didn't take Saddam out; George W. is criticized because he might try to.

Guest JTT: Once the press let's go of this story, the Iraq raid will be a footnote in history. We are a long way from war with Iraq, I think. Anyway, that was Clinton's way of getting the people's minds off his troubles, Bush hasn't had time to establish a pattern of any kind it seems to me.

DougR

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Feb 01 - 12:48 PM

Footnotes in history are dead people on the ground. Noone's going to make war on America, if that's what people are worried about. There might be some people blown up or shot in reprisal, more footnotes in history. Unless they happen to be important people, which they hardly ever are.

This isn't anything to do with anything except politics, nothing to do with protecting opponents of Saddam, or safeguarding pilots, or putting Saddam in any kind of risk. Politics, making some kind of political statement for domestic purposes.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: wdyat12
Date: 18 Feb 01 - 03:08 PM

McGrath of Harlow,

You're right. This agression against Iraq has been the failed US policy for over ten years now and they still haven't got it yet.

wdyat12

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: wdyat12
Date: 18 Feb 01 - 03:12 PM

The attack on Iraq is Dubya's way of saying, "I have arrived."

wdyat12

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Jack The Lad
Date: 18 Feb 01 - 03:39 PM

Britain and the USA attack Baghdad- and who gets the blame? Israel of course. Out with the old gasmasks again. Jack The Lad- in Israel.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: wdyat12
Date: 18 Feb 01 - 04:43 PM

Jack,

Who's blaming Israel? Israel has it's own problems to face right now. Less aggression and more communication in both venues would certainly ease tensions for the rest of the planet.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: MARINER
Date: 18 Feb 01 - 05:16 PM

Denis Halliday resigned as as coordinator of the U.N's humanitarian aid programme to Iraq in 1998. At the time he was quoted as saying "The sanctions are killing the people of Iraq. Five thousand innocent children under the age of five are dying every month as a direct result of the economic embargo forced on the Iraqi people over the last ten years". This is indefencable. The bombings in 1991 destroyed the water and sewage plants, disease is rife and there's no medicines to treat them.And still Sadam and his henchmen are untouched. The campaign has not affected them in the least. Surely there most be some other way to deal with him that will leave the next generation of Iraqi's intact??

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Feb 01 - 07:18 PM

Haven't seen anyone blaming Israel for this one. The way Israel gets brought into the discussion around this in the media is when it's pointed out that the US and others operate a double standard when it comes to Israel ignoring UN resolutions, occupying foreign territory, developing nuclear weapons and so forth.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Grab
Date: 18 Feb 01 - 07:26 PM

There's plenty of medicine available, Mariner. Iraq is at liberty to sell oil for medicine, but Hussein refuses to do it. So whose fault is that?

Suggestions Mariner? "Something must be done" is fine, but knowing what to do - that's the trick. Thing is, all political solutions require that the leaders are elected, or at least can be easily removed. Make life hell for the ppl, let them know that a new leader will solve the problem, and they'll find a new leader. This has failed bcos: (1) Hussein is an amoral psycho, as are his entourage, and any resistance is met with extreme force (eg. poison gas used on the Kurds and Marsh Arabs); and (2) Hussein's convinced the ppl (and some of the rest of the world) that the sanctions aren't his fault.

So what's left is to get rid of Hussein. Would you send in the CIA to assassinate him? Might be nice, but is it legitimate? And what then? Get his son (another psycho) in charge? Or do we kill the son too? Where do you fancy stopping?

And aid-wise, what should the world do? Say "Oh, you're not going to sell your oil, so we'll give you the stuff anyway for free?" All the more oil for him to sell illegally to keep him and his cronies in power.

Gervase, I'd agree with you about Turkey. Not just Kurds - anyone organising trade unions too, and anti-government political organisations. But we're also doing business with China, and their human rights record needs no summary. Bottom line, the political view is that an ethical foreign policy only works as far as it doesn't get in the way of business.

Grab.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Rollo
Date: 18 Feb 01 - 08:38 PM

Seems to me the whole region is close to the danger of being set ablaze now. allready the israel/palestina conflict and the iraq affair are merged into u.s. and jewish agression against the arabian world by muslim politicians. the israel election alone was desastrous for peace in near east. the timing of the bombardement couldn't have been worse. What will happen when arafat loses control over the more radical groups in palestina, or simply dies suddenly of high age? Or when ghadafi decides his days of playing good guy are over? When all these arabian so called "rogue states" are deciding to go rogue indeed? Every reasonable human should be able to recognice the need to de-escalate the most dangerous area on our planet, instead of showing power. Lord have mercy!

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: GUEST,cretinous yahoo
Date: 18 Feb 01 - 08:45 PM

George sr. had no authority to "take out Saddam"

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Pete M
Date: 18 Feb 01 - 09:06 PM

Guest cretinous yahoo is correct so far as the UN mandate was concerned, but then if what you are really concerned about was liberating Kuwait I would suggest that the whole Desert Storm campaign was a farce and fiasco. To achieve that aim militarily was no justification for the destruction of Iraqi infrastucture, nor for the long drawn out nature of the campaign which allowed the destruction of Kuwait as well.

If, heaven forbid, one was to be cynical, you would almost think that the chance to show off all those wondeful new toys a grateful nation had been buying for the military, and so justify the billions spent on them; had something to do with it.

Pete M

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Gary T
Date: 18 Feb 01 - 09:33 PM

From the Kansas City Star, Sat. 17 Feb.:
"Hussein blamed the United States and Israel for the bombings, although American and Israeli officials said Israel had not been informed in advance of the strikes."

So now you know who's blaming Israel. Surprised?

From the same paper:
"...U.S. officials said the targets, which were from five to 20 miles from downtown Baghdad, had been chosen in part because they were not in civilian areas."

My opinion is that Iraq's reports of civilian casualties are fabrications for the sole purpose of generating sympathy from the gullible.

From MARINER'S first post above: " If the Iraqis were bombing your country, and including it appears, innocent civilians, on a daily basis wouldn't you like to take out some of their planes?"

What's that got to do with the price of wheat? The U.S. and British planes are suppressing Iraqi aggression and defending themselves from Iraqi anti-aircraft action. They aren't going around bombing Iraq because they feel like it. If Iraq would keep their planes out of the no-fly zone, their targeting radar turned off, and their anti-aircraft weapons still, there would be no exchange of fire there. The Iraqis are the ones who could easily make hostilities cease, yet they continue to provoke return fire for the propaganda value. Judging from some of the reactions I've heard, the propaganda is working.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Pete M
Date: 18 Feb 01 - 09:41 PM

Oh come on Gary T; the bombing of radar, SAM and AAA sites is a correct military response to the threat to US/RAF planes. That is not the issue. It's why those planes are there in the first place. And if you believe they are there to protect the kurds and "minority groups" or to enforce UN Security Council edicts, ask your self why we are not also bombing Turkey for theier persecution of the Kurds and Israel for breaking UN resolutions and illegally occupying Palestine.

Pete M

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 18 Feb 01 - 11:06 PM

I'm with Mariner & Co all the way on this, but I'm glad to see DougR is still around, despite my bad manners on one occasion.

As for why Daddy Bush didn't finish the job, I agree, not for the first time, with Stormin' Norman, who seems to be gifted with a much deeper intellect than we've a right to expect in a squaddie. He said one of the main reasons was that US troops had no stomach for continuing what was already becoming an obscene and bloody turkey run, slaughering young Iraqi kids where they sat in their becalmed tanks and trucks, on the traffic-jammed roads back to Baghdad.

The other main reason - and this one certainly concentrated the minds of the combatant nations - was that going all the way would have meant committing ground troops to the region for years to come. The alternative would have been to leave a short-lived vacuum. Short-lived because Iran, maybe Syria and certainly and above all, Turkey, would have moved in to fill it.

Turkey, which has the second-biggest military capability in NATO, gets away with murder on a daily basis, tortures children in its police stations, and is about to be welcomed with open arms into the European Union. But that doesn't alter the fact that there is huge unease in Washington and London - to say nothing of Athens and many other capitals - at the prospect of Turkey acquiring even greater influence.

Someone said that medicine need not be a problem in Irag. That goes for food too. Doesn't work in practice though. I don't know about right now, but very recently doctors were unable to use the medicines they had, because the sanctions denied them basic tools like syringes.

Not to put too fine a point on it, the endless bombing of Iraq is illegal in international law, and it sickens me to see the UK hanging on to America's coat-tails. There is of course no military need for British support - it is there purely to take a little of the heat off Washington. The net result will be both countries being hated the world over not for any sincs of the past, but for what they are doing right now. The 20th Century saw 160 million killed in wars, and plainly we've learnt nothing.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Troll
Date: 18 Feb 01 - 11:15 PM

The planes are there to enforce the "on fly zone" which is supposed to keep Iraqi planes and gunships out of the north and south of the country.
Why? So Saddam can't massacre the Sunnis in the south and the Kurds in the north.
Why are the Turks killing Kurds? Because the Kurds want an independent country of their own (if they can ever agree among themselves who is in charge) and they want to make it out of part of Turkey and part of Iraq. I can understand the Turks reluctance to allow this.
This is not to say that the Turks haven't been a bit too enthusiastic in their zeal to protect their territorial integrity and political power.
Just telling a bit of the other side.
Bush Sr. had no mandate to take out Saddam and our laws forbid assassination as an instrument of foreign policy. We had hoped that his own people would overthrow him but it didn't work. Hence the current situation.

troll

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: InOBU
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 10:43 AM

the was a brilliant Saturday Night Live the other night, with Dubblya looking confused as ever, saying he was bombing Irac to divert attention from the Clinton pardon scandle in a spirit of bi-partisanship, Brilliant!
Larry

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Kim C
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 01:21 PM

I'm with Troll. If we had finished the job 10 years ago we wouldn't be having this conversation. BUT we're not supposed to "assassinate" anyone. So whaddya do? It always confounded me that no one could ever pin down Saddam's whereabouts, but that there were film clips of him, photos, etc. Obviously the photographers knew where he was...

It's sort of like a small child who won't behave. We say, hey now, you stop that, or you'll get a whuppin. Child perpetuates hijinks. Again we say, hey now, you Stop That, or you'll get a Whuppin. Child continues to perpetuate hijinks, this time a little louder. And we say, I SAID, STOP THAT, or you'll get a WHUPPIN. Child keeps it up, finally gets a whuppin. Then the child sits around and whines about it, even though he was fairly warned.

At this point I am relatively unconcerned about this action - this sort of thing has happened before and I think the news media doesn't have much to do right now, so they're making a big deal over this latest unzip-and-let's-measure measure.